HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-01-2012 2012-13 Financial Plan Supplement
2011-13
Financial
Plan
Supplement
July 1, 2012
Approved
2012-13 Budget
2011-13 Financial Plan Supplement
July 1, 2012
JAN HOWELL MARX, MAYOR
DAN CARPENTER, VICE MAYOR
JOHN ASHBAUGH, COUNCIL MEMBER
ANDREW CARTER, COUNCIL MEMBER
KATHY SMITH, COUNCIL MEMBER
Katie Lichtig, City Manager
Prepared by the Department of Finance & Information Technology
Charles Bourbeau, Director/City Treasurer
Debbie Malicoat, Finance Manager
Jennifer Thompson, Revenue Supervisor
Sallie McAndrew, Accounting Supervisor
Rachel McClure, Administrative Analyst
Approved 2012-13 Budget
City Of san lUIS OBISpO
REPORT PRODUCTION AND ANALYSIS
Budget Review Team
Charles Bourbeau, Director of Finance & Information Technology
Michael Codron, Assistant City Manager
Brigitte Elke, Principal Administrative Analyst
Monica Irons, Director of Human Resources
Debbie Malicoat, Finance Manager
Sallie McAndrew, Accounting Supervisor
Rachel McClure, Administrative Analyst
Shelly Stanwyck, Director of Parks & Recreation
Jennifer Thompson, Revenue Supervisor
CIP Review Committee
Charles Bourbeau, Director of Finance & Information Technology
Steve Gesell, Police Chief
Derek Johnson, Director of Community Development
Carrie Mattingly, Utilities Director
Shelly Stanwyck, Director of Parks & Recreation
Jay Walter, Director of Public Works
Staff Support to the Committee
Barbara Lynch, City Engineer
Debbie Malicoat, Finance Manager
Department of Finance & Information Technology Staff
Charles Bourbeau, Director/City Treasurer
Debbie Malicoat, Finance Manager
Sallie McAndrew, Accounting Supervisor
Rachel McClure, Administrative Analyst
Steve Schmidt, Information Technology Manager
Jennifer Thompson, Revenue Supervisor
Department Fiscal Officers
Ryan Betz, Community Development
Cheryl Blair, Utilities
Julie Cox, Fire
Kate Crosswhite, Human Resources
Brigitte Elke, Administration
Melissa Ellsworth, Police
Ashley Lopez, Parks & Recreation
Rachel McClure, Finance & Information Technology
Melissa Mudgett, Public W arks
Claudia Prows, City Attorney's Office
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE
Budget Process Overview
How to Use the Financial Plan Supplement
About the City
Goal-Setting and the Budget Process
Section A
INTRODUCTION
Budget Message
Financial Budget Highlights
General Fund Five Year Forecast
Measure Y Funding Summary
Mission Statement
Organizational Values
Directory of Officials and Advisory Bodies
Organization of the City
Awards for Distinguished Budget Presentation
and Excellence in Budgeting
Section B
Overview
Status of Goals and Objectives
Introduction
Major City Goals
Economic Development
Preservation of Essential Services and
Fiscal Health
Neighborhood Wellness
Traffic Congestion Relief
Other Important Objectives
Open Space Preservation
Infrastructure Maintenance
Planning: Update Land Use and
Circulation Elements
Affordable Housing/Homeless Services
Status of"Address as Resources Permit"
Objectives
Status of Carryover Objectives
Status of Major CIP Projects
ii
iii
iv
A-1
A-5
A-9
A-10
A-ll
A-12
A-13
A-14
A-15
B-1
B-2
B-4
B-6
B-10
B-13
B-18
B-21
B-24
B-26
B-29
B-31
B-33
(a)
Section C
BUDGET GRAPHICS AND SUMMARIES
Overview C-1
Combined Expenditures and Revenues: All Funds
Total Expenditures C-2
Total Funding Sources C-3
Operating Program Expenditures
By Function C-4
By Type C-5
Capital Improvement Plan Expenditures
By Function C-6
By Funding Source C-7
Debt Service Expenditures by Function C-8
Expenditures and Revenues by Fund Type
Total Expenditures by Fund C-9
General Fund Expenditures and Uses C-10
General Fund Operating Program Expenditures
By Function C-11
By Type C-12
General Fund Revenues C-13
Authorized Regular Positions
by Function: All Funds C-14
Changes in Financial Position Summary: 2011-12 C-15
Changes in Financial Position Summary: 2012-13 C-16
Section D
Overview
Purpose and Organization
Summary of Major Functions and Operations
Operating Expenditure Summaries
Overview
Operating Expenditures by Function
Operating Expenditures by Program
Public Safety
Public Utilities
Transportation
Leisure, Cultural and Social Services
Community Development
General Government
Operating Expenditures by Department
Operating Expenditures by Type: All Funds
Operating Expenditures by Type: General Fund
Significant Operating Program Changes
Summary
Supporting Documentation
D-1
D-2
D-3
D-4
D-6
D-7
D-8
D-9
D-10
D-11
D-12
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-17
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section E
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP)
Overview
Summary of CIP Expenditures
By Function
By Funding Source
Supplemental CIP Projects
Summary
Project Descriptions
Introduction
Description of Debt Obligations
Summary of Annual Payments by Function
Summary of Annual Payments by Source
Computation of Legal Debt Margin
Section G
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION
Overview
Introduction
Organization of the City's Funds
Combining Fund Balance Statements
All Funds Combined
All Governmental Funds Combined
All Enterprise and Agency Funds Combined
Individual Fund Balance Statements
General Fund
Special Revenue Funds
Downtown Business Improvement
District Fund
Tourism Business Improvement District Fund
Gas Tax Fund
Transportation Development Act Fund
Community Development Block Grant Fund
Law Enforcement Block Grant Fund
Public Art Fund
Proposition 42 Fund
Capital Project Funds
Capital Outlay Fund
Parkland Development Fund
Transportation Impact Fees Fund
Los Osos Valley Road Sub-Area Fee Fund
Open Space Protection Fund
Airport Area Impact Fee Fund
Affordable Housing Fund
Fleet Replacement Fund
E-1
E-2
E-3
E-5
E-6
F-1
F-2
F-4
F-5
F-7
G-1
G-1
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
G-7
G-8
G-9
G-10
G-11
G-12
G-13
G-14
G-15
G-16
G-17
G-18
G-19
G-20
G-21
G-22
(b)
Debt Service Fund G-23
Enterprise Funds
Water Fund G-24
Sewer Fund G-25
Parking Fund G-26
Transit Fund G-27
Golf Fund G-28
Agency Funds
Whale Rock Commission G-29
Park Hotel Fund G-30
Section H
FINANCIAL AND
Overview H-1
Revenue Summaries
Summary of Key Revenue Assumptions H-2
Revenues by Major Category and Source H-6
Expenditure Summaries
Total Expenditures by Type and Function H-12
Interfund Transactions
Reimbursement Transfers H-13
Operating Transfers H-14
Staffmg Summaries
Regular Positions by Department H-16
Regular Positions by Function H-26
Temporary Full-Time Equivalents (PTE's)
by Function H-27
Financial Trends
Pension Obligation Cost Trends H-28
Retiree Health Care Obligations H-30
New or Increased Fees or Taxes H-31
Revenue and Expenditure Trends:
Last Five Completed Fiscal Years H-33
Expenditures by Type: Last Five Years
All Funds Combined H-34
General Fund H-35
Other Statistical and Financial Summaries
Appropriations Limit History H-36
Demographic and Statistical Summary H-37
Section I
BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS
Overview
Resolution Adopting the Financial Plan
Supplement and 2012-13 Budget
I-1
I-2
PREFACE
PREFACE
BUDGET PROCESS OVERVIEW
The City of San Luis Obispo has received national
recognition for its use of a two-year budget process that
emphasizes long-range planning and effective program
management. Significant features of the City's two-year
Financial Plan include the integration of Council goal-
setting into the budget process and the extensive use of
formal policies and measurable objectives. The Financial
Plan includes operating budgets for two years and a
capital improvement plan (CIP) covering five years.
While appropriations continue to be made annually under
this process, the Financial Plan is the foundation for
preparing the budget in the second year. Additionally,
unexpended operating appropriations from the first year
may be carried over into the second year with the approval
ofthe City Manager.
Purpose of the Two-Year Financial Plan
The fundamental purpose of the City's Financial Plan is to
link what we want to accomplish for the community with
the resources necessary to do so. The City's Financial
Plan process does this by: clearly setting major City goals
and other important objectives; establishing reasonable
timeframes and organizational responsibility for achieving
them; and allocating resources for programs and projects.
Major City Goals
Linking important objectives with necessary resources
requires a process that identifies key goals at the very
beginning of budget preparation. Setting goals and
priorities should drive the budget process, not follow it.
For this reason, the City begins each two-year Financial
Plan process with in-depth goal setting workshops where
the Council invites candidate goals from community
groups, Council advisory bodies and interested
individuals; reviews the City's fiscal outlook for the next
five years and the status of prior goals; presents their
individual goals to fellow Council members; and then set
and prioritize major goals and work programs for the next
two years. City staff then prepare the Preliminary
Financial Plan based on the Council's policy guidance.
Financial Plan Policies
Formally articulated budget and fiscal policies provide the
foundation for preparing and implementing the Financial
Plan while assuring the City's long-term fiscal health.
Included in the Financial Plan itself, these policies cover a
broad range of areas such as user fee cost recovery goals,
enterprise fund rates, investments, capital improvement
-i-
management, debt management, capital fmancing, fund
balance and reserves, human resource management and
productivity.
Preparation and Review Process
Under the City Charter, the City Manager is responsible
for preparing the budget and submitting it to the Council
for approval. Although specific steps will vary from year
to year, the following is an overview of the general
approach used under the City's two-year budget process:
First Year. As noted above, the Financial Plan process
begins with Council goal-setting to determine major
objectives for the next two years. The results of Council
goal-setting are incorporated into the budget instructions
issued to the operating departments, who are responsible
for submitting initial budget proposals. After these
proposals are comprehensively reviewed and a detailed
financial forecast is prepared, the City Manager issues the
Preliminary Financial Plan for public comment. A series
of workshops and public hearings are then held leading to
Council adoption of the Financial Plan by June 30.
Second Year. Before the beginning of the second year of
the two-year cycle, the Council reviews progress during
the first year, makes adjustments as necessary and
approves appropriations for the second fiscal year.
Mid-Year Reviews. The Council formally reviews the
City's financial condition and amends appropriations, if
necessary, six months after the beginning of each fiscal
year.
Interim Financial and Project Status Reports. On-line
access to "up-to-date" financial information is provided to
staff throughout the organization. Additionally,
comprehensive fmancial reports are prepared monthly to
monitor the City's fiscal condition, and more formal
reports are issued to the Council on a quarterly basis. The
status of major program objectives, including CIP
projects, is also periodically reported to the Council on a
formal basis.
Administration
As set forth in the City Charter, the Council may amend or
supplement the budget at any time after its adoption by
majority vote of the Council members. The City Manager
has the authority to make administrative adjustments to
the budget as long as those changes will not have a
significant policy impact nor affect budgeted year-end
fund balances.
PREFACE
HOW TO USE THE FINANCIAL PLAN SUPPLEMENT
This supplement reflects the City's continued use of
a two-year financial plan that emphasizes long-range
planning and effective program management. The
benefits identified when the City's first two-year
plan was prepared for 1983-85 continue to be
realized:
1. Reinforcing the importance of long-range
planning.
2. Concentrating on developing and budgeting for
significant objectives.
3. Establishing realistic schedules for completing
program objectives
4. Creating a pro-active budget providing for
orderly and structured operations.
5. Promoting more orderly spending patterns.
6. Reducing the amount of time and resources
allocated to preparing annual budgets.
Appropriations continue to be made annually;
however, the Financial Plan is the foundation for
preparing the budget for the second year.
Additionally, unexpended operating appropriations
from the first year may be carried over for specific
purposes into the second year with the approval of
the City Administrative Officer.
The 2012-13 Budget document uses the same format
as the 2011-13 Financial Plan and is organized into
the following sections, which primarily focus on
changes from its parent document:
Section A
Introduction
Includes the Budget Message from the City Manager
highlighting key issues considered in preparing the
Financial Plan Supplement.
Section B
Policies and Objectives
Highlights any changes to the 2011-13 Financial
Plan policies and objectives; and provides a status
summary of Major City Goals.
-ii-
Section C
Budget Graphics and Summaries
Provides simple tables and graphs which highlight
key financial relationships and summarize the
overall budget document.
Section D
Operating Programs
Presents the operating budget at the function and
program levels, and summarizes changes from the
2011-13 Financial Plan.
Section E
Capital Improvement Plan
Summarizes changes in capital improvement
plan expenditures from the 2011-13 Financial
Plan.
Section F
Debt Service Requirements
Summarizes the City's debt obligations at the
beginning of the fiscal year.
Section G
Changes in Fund Balance
Provides an individual summary of revenues,
expenditures and changes in financial position for
each of the City's operating funds.
Section H
Financial and Statistical Tables
Summarizes revenues by major category and
sources; expenditures by type and function; and
authorized regular employees by department.
Section I
Budget Reference Materials
Lists a number of major policy documents that guide
the preparation and execution of the City's financial
plan.
PREFACE
ABOUT THE CITY
who We Are and How We Got Started
The City of San Luis Obispo serves as the
commercial, governmental and cultural hub of
California's Central Coast. One of California's
oldest communities, it began with the founding of
Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa in 1772 by
Father Junipero Serra as the fifth mission in the
California chain of 21 missions.
The mission was named after Saint Louis, a 13th
century Bishop of Toulouse, France. (San Luis
Obispo is Spanish for "St. Louis, the Bishop.") The
City was first incorporated in 1856 as a General
Law City, and became a Charter City in 1876.
where We're Located
With a population of 44,000, the City is located
eight miles from the Pacific Ocean and is midway
between San
Francisco and Los
Angeles at the
junction of
Highway 101 and
scenic Highway 1.
San Luis Obispo is
the County Seat,
and a number of
federal and state
regional offices and
facilities are located
here, including Cal
Poly State University, Cuesta Community College,
Regional Water Quality Board and Caltrans District
offices.
The City's ideal weather and natural beauty provide
numerous opportunities for outdoor recreation at
nearby City and State parks, lakes, beaches and
wilderness areas.
Great Place to Live, Work and Visit
While San Luis Obispo grew relatively slowly
during most of the 19th century, the coming of
Southern Pacific Railroad in 1894 opened up the
-iii-
area to the rest of California. The City's distance
from major metropolitan areas to the north (San
Francisco Bay Area) and south (Los Angeles) have
allowed our area to retain its historic and scenic
qualities, which contribute to the superb quality of
life our residents enjoy, and attract visitors from
many other areas.
Downtown
Another key feature contributing to the City's great
quality of life is our delightful downtown. The heart
of downtown is Mission Plaza. With its wonderful
creek side setting and beautifully restored mission
(that continues to serve as a parish church to this
day), Mission Plaza is the community's cultural and
social center.
This historic plaza is complemented by a bustling
downtown offering great shopping, outdoor and
indoor dining, night life, and its famous Thursday
Night Farmers' Market, where you can buy locally
grown fresh produce and enjoy an outdoor BBQ.
This unique blend of history, culture, commerce and
entertainment make San Luis Obispo's downtown
one of the most attractive, interesting and
economically vibrant downtowns in America.
Government
The City operates under the Council-Mayor-City
Administrative Officer form of government.
Council members are elected at-large and serve
overlapping, four-year terms. The Mayor is also
elected at-large but for a two-year term, and serves
as an equal member of the Council. The Council
appoints the City Manager and City Attorney. All
other department heads are appointed by the City
Manager.
San Luis Obispo is a full-service city that provides
police, fire, water, sewer, streets, transit, parking,
planning, building, engineering and parks &
recreation services to the community.
PREFACE
GOAL-SETTING AND THE BUDGET PROCESS
Goal-Setting and the Budget Process
2011-13 Financial Plan
Advisory Bodies ( Letters from
"'--Community Groups
Community Surveys J.......
Goai-Setti ng Input
Community Forum ~
January 11, 2011 I
Current 2-Year
Goals*
Long-Term Plans,
Goals & Policies*
*December 14, 2010
"Budget Foundation"
Workshop
Council Goal-Setting
Workshop
January 291 2011
Staff Budget Preparation
+
.... October 19, 2010
Major City Goal Work Programs & Strategic Budget Direction: April12
Preliminary Budget: May 20
Budget Workshops: June 2, 9, 14
Adopted Budget: June 21, 2011
City 0~ san lUIS OBISpO
-iv-
Section A
INTRODUCTION
BUDGET MESSAGE
TO: City Council
FROM: Katie Lichtig, City Manager
BUDGET OVERVIEW
Adoption of the 2011-13 Financial Plan Supplement
and 20 12-13 Budget will appropriate funds for the
second year of the 2011-13 Financial Plan.
Submission of this Financial Plan Supplement
provides an opportunity to assess progress on the
City's journey to fiscal sustainability laid out in the
20 11-13 Financial Plan.
As at the adoption of the 20 11-12 Mid-Year Budget
Review, there are both positive and negative
financial indicators to report along with considerable
uncertainty. Increased revenues and better than
expected beginning fund balance has been offset by
increased expenditures and unrealized personnel cost
reductions. This leaves the General Fund with a net
result that is consistent with that projected in the
2011-13 Financial Plan. Fiscal Year 2012-13 will
see General Fund revenues exceed expenditures, but
only by a razor thin margin of $157,900 out of an
almost $55 million operating budget.
Overall, the City's fmancial position continues to
call for restraint and discipline. However, I am
pleased to report that staff has been able to approach
development of the 2012-13 Supplement without
facing the budget cutting environment that has
accompanied the development of previous budget
documents since 2008.
Limited Budget Changes
In accordance with the City's two year budget
framework, the 2012-13 Budget is primarily
intended to "stay the course" while responding to
changed circumstances since adoption of the 20 11-
13 Financial Plan and to best position the City for
development of the 2013-15 Financial Plan.
Consequently, the 2012-13 Supplement updates
revenue and cost assumptions, and recommends
expenditure changes only where needed to address a
specific timing requirement or take advantage of a
particular opportunity.
A-1
Departments, and the Budget Review Team in tum,
responded to this guidance by recommending the
approval of less than $300,000 in additional costs,
most of which are one-time expenses for 2012-13.
Revenues
The most clearly positive change in the City's
financial picture is the rise seen in two key revenue
sources in 2011-12, which has more than offset
declines or flat results in other areas.
Final Sales Tax and Measure Y (additional Y2 cent
sales tax) results for 2010-11 were better than when
the 2011-13 Financial Plan was adopted, followed
by greater than expected gains in the first and second
quarters of 2011-12. As a result, staff has raised
sales tax and Measure Y revenue projections for
both 2011-12 and 2012-13. For 2012-13, the new
projection is $1.9 million higher than the original
20 11-13 plan estimate.
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenues have also
experienced recovery, which prompted an increase
in revenue estimates at the Mid-Year Budget
Review. This revenue source continues to exceed
projections and will likely reach pre-recession levels
during 2012.
By contrast, Property Tax continues to underperform
earlier estimates, while Utility Users Tax is
relatively flat and investment income is well below
original estimates.
Overall the revenue trend is slightly favorable.
However, given ongoing economic uncertainty
discussed below, staffs projections of revenue
growth in future years are moderate and prudent, as
they are subject to a weak recovery.
Expenditures
Expenditures for 2011-12 are on track in most
categories and we will likely exceed the projected
2% budgeted savings in operating expenses. For
purposes of the fiscal forecast a 3.5% savings has
been assumed. This assumption is a reflection of the
BUDGET MESSAGE
traditional stewardship of City resources and reflects
the fact that departments do not have a "use it or lose
it" mentality. This savings is in addition to the
personnel compensation reductions included in the
Financial Plan.
The City has reached agreement with a majority of
bargaining units that will achieve 52% of the
budgeted $3.1 million in annual personnel
compensation reductions in the long term. The
City's objective remains a 6.8% reduction in total
compensation Citywide. The reductions for most
non-management employees are being phased in
over time, meaning most of the savings budgeted in
2011-12 will not be realized until 2012-13 or later.
The final outcome for two large bargaining units
remains to be seen.
The Supplement reflects personnel cost reductions
for bargaining units that have reached agreements
and anticipates achieving 50% of annual cost
savings for remaining units in 2012-13, before full
implementation of the 6.8% total compensation
reduction in 2013-14.
The Supplement also reflects an increase in workers
compensation and liability insurance premiums from
CalJPIA that will increase 2012-13 expenses by over
$200,000.
Net Results
When these unrealized savings and the relatively
small expenditures approved at Mid-Year are
balanced against the increased current year revenues
described above, the City's projected General Fund
net results for 20 11-12 are consistent with the
$1,941,400 draw on reserves that was approved in
the Financial Plan.
For 2012-13, the increased expenses, phased in
personnel cost reductions, and increased revenues
will largely offset each other with the net projected
result for the year being a small surplus of $157,900.
Thanks to prior year savings, the General Fund
reserve balance will remain above the policy level of
20% of operating expenses for both years.
A-2
As part of the 2012-13 Supplement, staff updated the
numbers contained in the 2011-16 General Fund
Five Year Fiscal Forecast. Doing so highlighted the
considerable uncertainty still facing the City's
financial environment. Some of these uncertainties
are discussed below.
The 2011-13 Financial Plan included projections
reflecting known increases in employer contribution
rates to the Public Employee Retirement System
(PERS) in the out years. Based on actions by the
PERS board in March 2012 to reduce the assumed
investment rate of return, the Fiscal Forecast
includes estimates totaling almost $600,000 annually
Citywide for PERS employer rate increases
beginning in 2013-14. We will not know the actual
impact until fall 2012 when we receive our next
PERS valuation report.
In addition to this increase, we expect PERS to
continue to refme various assumptions and previous
rate smoothing methods that will likely result in
further rises in employer contribution rates in 2014-
15 or beyond.
Continuing cuts in the state budget retain the
potential to adversely affect our financial status.
While no direct State takeaways are on the table in
the Governor's budget, this could change as the state
enters its budget adoption season. More directly,
San Luis Obispo County's heavy dependence on
state funded institutions, such as Cal Poly, California
Mens Colony, Cuesta College, and other regional
offices, makes the City sensitive to layoffs,
furloughs, or pay reductions such as the 5% pay cut
proposed in the Governor's May Budget Revise.
Finally, continued economic recovery in the United
States and California and forecasts of growth may
not materialize. While our sales tax and TOT
revenues have turned up, these sources are heavily
dependent on increasing consumer confidence,
which is harder to sustain and more easily dashed in
the wake of the Great Recession and uneven
recovery. Despite signs of life and record low
interest rates, development activity and property
values are still on shaky ground with the impact fee
and property tax revenue they support far from
stable.
BUDGET MESSAGE
The updated General Fund Five Year Forecast
summary provided on page A-9 reflects revenues
and sources exceeding expenses and uses in each
year for 2012-13 through 2015-16. This is a positive
outlook and demonstrates some degree of financial
sustainabi1ity. It is important to note however that
the net positive result each year represents a margin
of less than one per cent of General Fund operating
expenses and includes capital improvement plan
amounts that continue to fall short of long term
needs. Other noteworthy assumptions contained in
the forecast numbers include:
Further moderate increases in revenues
Assumes achieving all remaining projected
personnel cost reductions in the out years
and a proportional amount in 2012-13.
Assumes the reauthorization of the Y2 cent
sales tax (Measure Y) for 2014-15 and
2015-16 revenue projections.
FUTURE FINANCE RELATED INITIATIVES
~
Increasing capital investment. The City estimates
the cost of maintaining, repairing, or replacing
existing General Fund facilities, infrastructure and
equipment is about $9 million annually.
Over the course of the five year forecast, the
combined Capital Improvement Project (CIP) plan,
including fleet replacement, averages less than $5
million annually. As staff develops the 2013-15
Financial Plan beginning in fall 2012, every effort
will be made to provide Council with alternatives for
addressing the shortfall in capital investment.
Along these lines, staff has identified the need to
address more systematically the cost of acquiring or
replacing software applications that are critical to the
functioning of all City departments. Heretofore, the
City has taken a "pay as you go" approach to
software procurements with the result including
some rather large changes in operating program
budgets.
A-3
To recognize both the ongoing need for software
application procurement, and the need for resource
planning, staff is likely to propose the creation of an
IT Replacement Fund, which would be similar to the
City's current Fleet Replacement Fund. Such a fund
would include amounts set aside for the replacement
of IT equipment as well as software. The priorities
for the fund would be established by the IT Steering
Committee in a process similar to that used by the
CIP Review Committee. The purpose of the fund
would be to enhance planning for IT hardware and
software expenses and to even out IT application
budget allocations. There are currently insufficient
funds available to propose funding an IT
Replacement Fund as part of the 2012-13
Supplement.
It is noteworthy that at this stage in the City's
history there is no provision for setting aside
resources for maintenance and replacement of the
City's buildings and major systems such as roofs,
plumbing, and heating and air conditioning systems.
As this program moves forward in the coming years
this aspect of the capital budget will be more
thoroughly evaluated and solutions proposed.
Taking advantage of low interest rates. Twice in
2012 the City has been able to take advantage oflow
interest rates to refinance outstanding bonds and
achieve considerable debt service savings. In one
case the Water Fund achieved over $100,000 in
annual savings and in the other the General Fund
will save over $65,000 annually.
Staff will continue to look for opportunities where
substantial cost savings can be achieved by using
low interest financing to pay off fixed liabilities.
ROLE OF MEASURE Y REVENUES
Measure Y, a lh-cent general purpose sales tax
adopted in November 2006 with 65% voter
approval, now provides about $6 million annually in
added General Fund revenues. Measure Y will
expire in March 2015 unless reauthorized by the
voters at a General Election before then.
Representing approximately 11% of General Fund
revenue, Measure Y plays an important role in the
City's financial picture. Whether mitigating deeper
cuts in City services or allowing support for
community priorities, Measure Y revenues have
BUDGET MESSAGE
been critical to accomplishing the Major City Goal
of preserving essential services and fiscal health.
The estimated revenue and proposed use of funds
generated by Measure Y are integrated into the
budget process so as to reflect community priorities.
The proposed uses of Measure Y revenues in 20 12-
13 are reflected on page A-1 0 of the Supplement.
MAJOR CITY GOALS
I
The fundamental purpose of the City's Financial
Plan is to link what the City wants to accomplish
over the two year period with the resources required
to do so. During the development of the 2011-13
Financial Plan the Council ultimately adopted four
Major City Goals:
• Economic Development
• Preservation of Essential Services and Fiscal
Health
• Neighborhood Wellness
• Traffic Congestion Relief
Council also identified Other Important Council
Objectives through the goal setting process.
The status of these goals and objectives, and the
action plans established to execute them, is
discussed in detail in Section B. In general, staff
believes the City is on track for achieving these
goals and objectives.
While the focus of this message has been the
General Fund, all of the City's funds, including the
Water, Sewer, Parking, and Transit enterprise funds,
are addressed in the Supplement document. While
the enterprise funds are not directly affected by the
revenue aspects discussed in this message, they are
affected by most of the expenditure impacts
addressed. The status and budget for each enterprise
fund will have been discussed with Council in depth
at its June 12, 2012 meeting when each enterprise
fund review will be presented to the Council and
community for consideration.
A-4
CLOSING THOUGHTS
In presenting the Financial Plan Supplement to the
Council, staff has again made its best efforts to
balance delivering day to day services, maintaining
existing facilities, and funding new priorities, while
prudently preparing for unpredicted costs and
protecting against an uncertain future. I believe
adoption of this Supplement will allow the
community to be served in the best way possible
while ensuring the City's financial sustainability in
the coming years. Staff looks forward to your
consideration of the 2012-13 Supplement and
implementing the policies directed by the City
Council in the next year.
Preparing the Financial Plan Supplement is a team
effort involving the time and talents of a wide
variety of City employees: department heads; staff
members from Administration and Finance &
Information Technology; special review groups such
as the CIP Review Committee and Budget Review
Team; department fiscal officers; and department
operating staff.
I would like to take this opportunity to extend my
personal appreciation to all the staff involved in this
process.
FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS
OVERVIEW
Total proposed appropriations for 2012-13 are $96.1
million summarized as follows:
Governmental l:::nterpnse
Funds Funds Total
Operating Programs 51,705,000 29,201,400 80,906,400
CIP 4,488,900 1,365,000 5,853,900
Debt Service 2,637,500 6,708,200 9,345,700
Total $58,831,400 $37,274,600 $96,106,000
The budget for 2012-13 is balanced for all funds.
What is a balanced budget? The City's fiscal
policies define a balanced budget as one where:
1. Operating revenues are equal to or greater than
operating expenditures, including debt service.
2. Ending fund balance (or working capital in the
enterprise funds) meets minimum policy levels.
For the general and enterprise funds, this level
has been established at 20% of operating
expenditures.
This means that it is allowable for total expenditures
to exceed revenues in a given year, but in this
situation beginning fund balance can only be used to
fund capital improvement plan projects, or other
"one-time," non-recurring expenditures.
REVENUE HIGHLIGHTS
General Fund
Sources used in preparing General Fund revenue
projections include:
1. Analysis of key revenue trends for the past
fifteen years compared with changes in the
consumer price index, population and other
demographic factors as well as legislative and
other structural changes.
2. Economic trends as reported in the national
media.
3. Forecast data for the State prepared by the
UCLA forecasting project, and for San Luis
Obispo County by the Central Coast Economic
Forecast (of which the City is a sponsor).
A-5
4. Economic and fiscal trends provided by the State
Legislative Analyst and the State Department of
Finance.
5. Revenue estimating materials prepared by the
State Controller's Office and the League of
California Cities.
Ultimately, however, the 2012-13 revenue
projections reflect the staffs best judgment about
how the local economy will perform over the next
year, and how it will affect our key revenues.
Key General Fund Revenues
Detailed descriptions and revenue assumptions for
the City's top ten revenues, which account for
approximately 95% of total General Fund revenues,
are provided in Section H: Financial and Statistical
Tables of the Financial Plan Supplement.
The following is an overview of assumptions for the
top three General Fund revenues, which account for
about 60% of total General Fund sources:
1. Sales Tax. This is the City's number one
General Fund revenue, accounting for 35% of
General Fund sources. Positive results in the
first two quarters of 20 11-12 have led staff to
project 7% growth in 2011-12 and 4.5% growth
in 2012-13.
Similarly, the Measure Y V2-cent sales tax is
projected to follow the same assumptions. Staff
projects that Measure Y revenues will generate
$6 million in 2011-12, and $6.3 million in 2012-
13.
2. Property Tax. Under Proposition 13, assessed
value increases are generally limited to 2%
annually. They can be increased to market value
for improvements or upon change of ownership.
Based on both long-term and recent trends and
projected growth in new housing units, property
tax revenues are expected to be flat in 20 12-13.
3. Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). Compared
to the prior year, year-to-date revenues through
March are up by 8.3%, which is ahead of the 4%
increase anticipated in the 2011-12 Mid-Year
Budget.
Based largely on overall year-to-date trends for
the first nine months of the year, staff is
FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS
projecting a 6% increase in TOT revenues for
2011-12.
Enterprise Fund Revenues
Comprehensive rate reviews and revenue
requirement projections for the next four years were
presented to the Council on June 12, 2012 for each
of the City's four enterprise funds: Water, Sewer,
Parking and Transit. The following is a brief
overview of enterprise fund rate actions approved by
the Council for 20 11-13.
Water Fund. Consistent with the multi-year rate
setting strategy previously approved by the Council
to improve the City's water distribution and
treatment systems as well as fund participation in the
Nacimiento water project, the Council approved rate
increases of 10% in July 2011 and 9% in July 2012.
These increases are on target with prior projections
for 2011-13.
Sewer Fund. The Sewer Fund also uses a multi-
year rate-setting strategy. In order to continue
supporting an adequate capital improvement plan
and meet high wastewater treatment standards, the
Council approved rate increases of 7% in July 2011
and 6% in July 2012. These increases are on target
with prior projections for 2011-13.
Parking Fund. Last year City Council approved
several revenue increases including charging on
Sundays, a new super-core area with credit card
capable parking meters, weekend residential parking
enforcement, and some minor fine/fee increases.
Parking revenues for 2011-12 are anticipated to be
less than projections by about $200,000. This is
primarily due to delays in implementing Sunday
parking, the delayed installation of new credit card
capable meters with their associated increased rates,
and a change in the schedule of the Major City Goal
for Neighborhood Wellness.
Transit Fund. Transit fares are not scheduled to
increase but there is an increase in funding expected
from the contract with Cal Poly. Federal Transit
Administration and State Transportation
Development Act (TDA) funds are adequate to
support current transit service levels in 2012-13.
A-6
OPERATING PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS
Appropriations for operating programs-day-to-day
delivery of services-total $80.9 million for 2012-13
summarized as follows:
Operating Programs: 2012-13
Governmental Enterprise
Funds Funds Total
Public Safety 24,849,000 24,849,000
Public Utilities 20,610,400 20,610,400
Transportation 3,267,800 4,858,900 8,126,700
Leisure, Cultural &
Social Services 7,199,200 7,199,200
Community
Development 7,458,900 7,458,900
General Government 8,930,100 3,732,100 12,662,200
Total $51' 705,000 $29,201,400 $80,906,400
Significant Operating Program Changes. Detailed
supporting documentation for each of the
recommended operating program additions is
provided in the Expenditure Summaries part of
Section D. The following is a summary of these.
Public Safety
Personal Protective Equipment for Newly Hired
Firefighters. Providing three sets of required
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for newly
hired firefighters will cost $21,300 in 2012-13.
Public Utilities
Update Water and Wastewater Development
Impact Fee Study. Using consultant services to
complete an update of the Water and Wastewater
Development Impact Fee Study will cost $15,000 in
2012-13.
Water Quality Studies for San Luis Obispo Creek.
Performing enhanced studies and continuing
stakeholder facilitation to better quantify water
quality and the related beneficial uses of San Luis
Obispo Creek will cost $275,000 in 2012-13.
Organization Structure Review. Continuing
improvement in organizational efficiency and
effectiveness by ensuring the Utilities Department is
appropriately structured will cost $25,000 in 2012-
13.
FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS
Utilities Business Manager. Meeting the complex
analytic and fiscal needs of the Utilities Department
requires the addition of a Utilities Business
Manager.
Water Source of Supply: Nacimiento Water
Project. Aligning the 2012-13 Source of Supply
operating program budget with the 2012-13
Nacimiento Water Operating Fund budget recently
adopted by the Nacimiento Project Commission will
reduce costs by $276,000.
Transportation
Signal Maintenance Technician Salary. Providing
for an additional Signal and Street Lighting
technician to provide overlap with a retiring
technician will cost $40,400 in regular salary and
benefits in 2012-13.
Community Development
Housing Program Funding Gap. Offsetting the
reduction in the City's Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) funding allocation and
providing full funding for the Housing Assistance
Program will cost $21,200 in 2012-13.
Community Promotions Staffing -Tourism
Manager. Hire a full-time, contract position as
tourism manager to spearhead the Tourism Business
Improvement District program and Community
Promotions will cost $93,100 in 2012-13.
General Government
City Clerk Office Reorganization. Ensuring the
City Clerk program meets its legal obligations and
supports City Council meetings, elections, advisory
body recruitments, and records management by
creating a Deputy City Clerk position and increasing
a temporary administrative assistant to a three
quarter time position will cost $45,600 annually.
Deputy Director Leave Coverage. Adding contract
services to provide critical program support during
an extended leave of absence of the Deputy Director
of Public Works position will cost $85,100 in
contract services in 2012-13.
City Attorney Office Staffing. Providing coverage
for the operational needs of the City Attorney's
A-7
Office during the period of the Assistant City
Attorney's maternity leave will cost $25,300 in
2011-12 and $11,700 in 2012-13, for a total cost of
$37,000.
Outside Counsel for Code Enforcement. Retaining
outside code enforcement counsel to support timely
staff support and prosecution of code enforcement
cases in furtherance of the neighborhood wellness
Major City Goal will cost $25,000 beginning in
2012-13.
Upgrade Business Tax and License Software.
Upgrading HdL, the City's business tax and license
software to improve customer service by providing
on-line renewal and payment capability. This
upgrade will cost $34,300 in 2012-13 and $5,000
annually going forward.
City User Fee Study. Providing funding for an
analysis of the City's user fees and configuration of
the updated fee structure in the EnerGov system will
cost $36,100 in 2012-13.
Emergency Generator Preventative Maintenance.
Increasing contract services in the Vehicle and
Equipment Maintenance division budget will cost
$15,600 annually for emergency standby generator
maintenance at various City locations.
Overtime and Callback Pay. Providing overtime
and callback pay for the Vehicle and Equipment
Maintenance division in support of unexpected
maintenance and repairs of Fire Department
apparatus and equipment will cost $7,500 annually.
CIP HIGHLIGHTS
The five-year CIP for 2011-16 is summarized in
Section E by function and funding source. The
revised CIP for 2012-13 totals $5.8 million,
summarized as follows by function and funding
source:
FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS
CIP Summary: 2012-13
CIP Expendotures by Functoon
Public Safety
Public Utilities
Transportation
Leisure, Cultural &
Social Services
Community Development
General Government
Total
CIP Expendotures by Source
General Fund
Transportation Impact Fees
CDBG Fund
Other Grants and Contributions
Fleet Replacement Fund
Enterprise and Agency Funds
Total
FINANCIAL PLAN POLICIES
465,800
1,170,000
3,253,300
765,800
22,500
176,500
$5,853,900
3,273,400
25,000
329,300
570,000
291,200
1,365,000
$5,853,900
Formally articulated Financial Plan policies provide
the fundamental framework and foundation for
preparing and implementing the City's budget. They
are comprehensively set forth in Section B: Policies
and Objectives of the Financial Plan.
A-8
20
0
9
-
1
0
20
1
0
-
1
1
I
Ac
t
u
a
l
Ac
t
u
a
l
VA
I
L
A
B
L
E
Fl
J
N
D
BA
L
A
N
C
E
,
BE
G
I
N
N
I
N
G
O
F
YE
A
R
13
,
9
9
1
,
9
0
0
11
,
1
1
4
,
1
0
0
&
O
T
H
E
R
SO
U
R
C
E
S
Sa
l
e
s
T
a
x
-
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
(B
a
s
e
d
on
"e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
"
I%
ta
x
ra
t
e
)
10
,
7
2
3
,
9
0
0
12
,
0
9
8
,
6
0
0
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Y
l/
2
%
No
t
e
:
20
1
4
-
1
5
/
1
5
-
1
6
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
as
s
u
m
e
re
n
e
w
a
l
5,
2
5
2
,
5
0
0
5,
6
1
6
,
3
0
0
Sa
l
e
s
T
a
x
-
Pr
o
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
17
2
25
7
,
9
0
0
27
1
,
3
0
0
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ta
x
8,
5
7
9
,
3
0
0
8,
4
4
1
,
1
0
0
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ta
x
in
li
e
u
o
f
VL
F
3,
5
6
5
,
1
0
0
3,
5
5
1
,
1
0
0
Tr
a
n
s
i
e
n
t
Oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
Ta
x
4,
4
9
6
,
1
0
0
4,
8
4
4
,
2
0
0
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
Us
e
r
s
Ta
x
4,
8
6
2
,
4
0
0
4,
5
9
2
,
3
0
0
Fr
a
n
c
h
i
s
e
Fe
e
s
2,
3
9
6
,
7
0
0
2,
3
5
2
,
1
0
0
Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
Ta
x
1,
8
3
0
,
1
0
0
1,
7
9
7
,
8
0
0
Re
a
l
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
Ta
x
12
9
,
0
0
0
13
3
,
7
0
0
Su
b
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
s
&
G
r
a
n
t
s
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
Li
c
e
n
s
e
In
-
L
i
e
u
Fe
e
s
(V
L
F
)
13
5
,
0
0
0
20
5
,
6
0
0
Mu
t
u
a
l
Ai
d
Re
i
m
b
u
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
s
(n
e
t
)
36
5
,
0
0
0
86
,
8
0
0
Ga
s
Ta
x
/
T
D
A
I
T
B
I
D
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
In
1,
1
9
5
,
4
0
0
1,
6
5
8
,
4
0
0
I
Ot
h
e
r
Su
b
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
s
&
Gr
a
n
t
s
46
1
,
0
0
0
50
3
,
6
0
0
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Ch
a
r
g
e
s
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Re
v
i
e
w
Fe
e
s
1,
7
9
4
,
0
0
0
1,
6
6
8
,
0
0
0
I
>
I
Re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
Fe
e
s
1,
2
6
8
,
3
0
0
1,
3
0
0
,
7
0
0
I
Ot
h
e
r
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Ch
a
r
g
e
s
1,
6
2
9
,
3
0
0
2,
0
1
8
,
4
0
0
1.
.
0
O
t
h
e
r
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
&
O
T
H
E
R
US
E
S
46
,
2
0
0
,
2
0
0
45
,
0
8
6
,
7
0
0
3,
0
2
3
,
2
0
0
20
1
1
-
1
2
11
,
9
1
4
,
5
0
0
12
,
9
4
5
,
5
0
0
5,
6
8
2
,
9
0
0
6,
0
0
9
,
4
0
0
27
2
,
3
0
0
27
2
,
3
0
0
8,
7
9
5
,
2
0
0
8,
3
7
0
,
2
0
0
3,
5
5
1
,
0
0
0
3,
5
5
1
,
0
0
0
4,
8
6
5
,
4
0
0
5,
1
3
4
,
8
0
0
4,
8
9
8
,
9
0
0
4,
8
9
8
,
9
0
0
2,
4
4
6
,
4
0
0
2,
5
0
3
,
4
0
0
1,
8
4
9
,
8
0
0
1,
8
4
9
,
8
0
0
16
0
,
0
0
0
16
0
,
0
0
0
13
3
,
1
0
0
22
,
5
0
0
1,
2
6
5
,
9
0
0
I
1,
2
8
2
,
8
0
0
22
1
,
2
0
0
1,
3
9
1
,
1
0
0
1,
8
5
7
.
6
0
0
I
2,
2
4
4
,
4
0
0
1,
5
8
8
,
4
0
0
1,
5
1
1
,
8
0
0
2,
0
1
4
,
9
0
0
1,
8
5
8
,
7
0
0
11
,
1
2
1
,
7
0
0
13
,
5
2
8
,
0
0
0
14
,
0
6
1
,
5
0
0
6,
2
7
9
,
8
0
0
6,
4
9
9
,
6
0
0
28
4
,
6
0
0
29
5
,
8
0
0
8,
3
7
0
,
2
0
0
8,
4
9
5
,
8
0
0
3,
5
5
1
,
0
0
0
3,
6
0
4
,
3
0
0
5,
3
9
5
,
0
0
0
5,
6
1
1
,
7
0
0
4,
9
3
8
,
1
0
0
5,
0
0
7
,
2
0
0
2,
5
2
3
,
0
0
0
2,
6
1
8
,
9
0
0
1,
9
2
3
,
1
0
0
1,
9
9
0
,
4
0
0
18
0
,
0
0
0
20
0
,
0
0
0
1,
2
8
1
,
1
0
0
1
1
,
2
8
5
,
6
0
0
32
1
,
5
0
0
32
7
,
9
0
0
2,
0
3
5
,
8
0
0
1
2
,
0
9
6
,
9
0
0
1,
5
3
2
,
5
0
0
1,
5
5
4
,
0
0
0
1,
8
8
0
,
6
0
0
1,
9
0
6
,
9
0
0
49
,
4
4
3
,
8
0
0
72
4
,
6
0
0
(1
,
1
8
1
,
8
0
0
)
(2
0
0
,
0
0
0
)
2,
6
3
8
,
1
0
0
85
0
,
0
0
0
11
,
4
3
7
,
8
0
0
14
,
4
8
3
,
3
0
0
6,
6
9
4
,
6
0
0
30
4
,
7
0
0
8,
6
6
5
,
7
0
0
3,
6
7
6
,
4
0
0
5,
7
8
0
,
1
0
0
5,
1
0
7
,
3
0
0
2,
7
1
8
,
4
0
0
2,
0
5
0
,
1
0
0
20
4
,
0
0
0
1,
2
9
2
,
0
0
0
33
4
,
5
0
0
2,
1
8
0
,
8
0
0
1,
5
8
5
,
1
0
0
1,
9
4
5
,
0
0
0
51
,
1
7
1
,
8
0
0
25
0
,
1
0
0
(1
,
1
8
1
,
8
0
0
)
(2
5
0
,
0
0
0
)
2,
3
4
2
,
1
0
0
90
0
,
0
0
0
15,175,000 6,994,000 319,300 8,882,300 3,768,300 6,203,500 5,250,300 2,821,700 2,111,600 209,700 52,707,400 489,700 (1,181,800) (300,000) 2,332,900 900,000 5
MEASURE Y FUNDING SUMMARY
The uses of Measure Y revenues for 2011-13 in funding operating programs and capital improvement
plan (CIP) projects are aligned with top Council goals and objectives, and closely match projected revenues.
Operatin~ Programs CIP Two-Year
2011-12 2012-13 2011-12 2012-13 Budget Total
Preservation of Essential Services
Public Safety
Police Services 702,000 684,000 350,000 1,736,000
Fire Prevention & Training 449,700 409,300 859,000
Personal Protective Equipment 21,300
Cardiac Monitor Replacements 94,600 94,600
Fire Engineffruck Replacement: Debt Service 129,900 126,900 256,800
Maintenance Services
Streets, Sidewalks and Traffic Signal Operations 184,100 227,000 25,000 35,000 471,100
Creek & Flood Protection 449,600 457,200 -35,000 941,800
Parks 80,000 81,700 25,000 50,000 236,700
Project Management & Inspection 261,500 257,000 518,500
Neighborhood Wellness
Enhanced Building & Zoning Code Enforcement 127,800 123,900 251,700
Neighborhood Service Specialists 81,000 162,000 243,000
"SNAP" Enhancement 18,100 18,100 36,200
Outside Counsel Code Enforcement 25,000
Traffic Congestion Relief
Traffic Engineer 111,700 117,200 228,900
Traffic Safety Report Implementation 25,000 25,000 50,000
Traffic Operations Report Implementation 30,000 30,000
Roadway Sign Replacement 66,500 66,500 133,000
Bob Jones City to Sea Trail LOVR Bridge 131,000 131,000
Open Space Preservation
Froom Ranch Improvements 62,500 22,500 85,000
Open Space Acquisition 175,000 -175,000
Infrastructure Maintenance
Fire Engine Bay Slab Replacement 20,000 80,000 100,000
Street Reconstruction & Resurfacing 1,700,000 1,500,000 3,200,000
Warden Bridge Deck/Mission Plaza walkway 7,500 57,500 65,000
Storm Drain Replacements 350,000 350,000 700,000
Toro Street Creek Bank Stabilization 35,000 30,000 65,000
Andrews Creek Bypass 84,000 -84,000
Broad Street Creek Bank Reinforcement -35,000 35,000
Olympic Pool Heater Replacement 185,000
Playground Equipment Replacement 35,300 520,000 555,300
TOTAL $2,465,500 $2,583,700 $3,251,700 $3,213,000 $11,282,600
Projected Measure Y Revenues
2011-12 6,009,400
2012-13 6,219,700
Total $12,229,100
A-10
MISSION STATEMENT
SAN LUIS OBISPO STYLE
Quality With Vision
WHO ARE WE?
• A team that puts high value on each citizen it
serves.
• Providers of programs that meet basic service
needs of each citizen.
• Enhancers of the quality of life for the
community as a whole.
WHAT DO WE STAND FOR?
• Service to the community -the best -at all
times.
• Respect -for each other and for those we serve.
• Value -ensuring delivery of service with value
for cost.
• Community involvement-the opportunity to
participate in attaining the goals of the City.
A-ll
WHERE ARE WE GOING?
• Planning and managing for levels of service
consistent with the needs of the citizens.
• Offering skills development and organizational
direction for employees in order to improve the
delivery of municipal services.
• Developing sources of funding and establishing
a sound financial management program which
will result in fiscal independence and flexibility
in the delivery of City Services.
• Providing the residents of the City with accurate
and timely information on issues which affect
them, and encouraging the full utilization of
City services.
• Promoting the City as a regional trade,
recreational and tourist center and improving the
quality of life for residents and visitors.
ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES
We, as an organization, embrace opportunities to
improve our services and the quality and
effectiveness of our relationships with the
community and our teams. The following values
guide and inspire our efforts.
Shared Vision, Mission and Goals
We have a sense of common purpose and direction
pursued with passion and translated into concrete
actions.
Service
We are dedicated to the best use of resources to
fulfill identified community goals and needs.
Leadership and Support
We recognize that the ability to lead can be found at
all levels and that to create an environment to
succeed requires leading by example.
Communication
We foster open and clear discussion that encourages
the willingness to speak up and to listen, within a
framework of respect and understanding.
Team Players
We encourage effective working relationships
within and between departments and the public to
address issues and achieve valuable results.
A-12
Honesty, Respect and Trust
We honor commitments, acknowledge legitimate
differences of opinion and accept decisions reached
with integrity.
Initiative and Accountability
We take personal responsibility to do what needs to
be done and report the results in a straightforward
manner.
Innovation and Flexibility
We are open to change and willing to try new ways
to fulfill the organization's vision, mission, and
goals more effectively.
Employee Development and Recognition
We encourage and support each employee to
improve relevant job skills and celebrate personal
and team accomplishments.
Stewardship and Ethics
We promote public trust by using City resources
wisely, and through consistent fulfillment of these
values.
DIRECTORY OF OFFICIALS AND ADVISORY BODIES
CITY COUNCIL
Jan Howell Marx, Mayor
Dan Carpenter, Vice-Mayor
John Ashbaugh, Council Member
Andrew Carter, Council Member
Kathy Smith, Council Member
ADVISORY BODIES
Architectural Review Commission
Bicycle Committee
Board of Appeals
Campaign Regulation Committee
Cultural Heritage Committee
Housing Authority
Human Relations Commission
Jack Residence Advisory Committee
Joint Recreational Use Committee
Mass Transportation Committee
Parks and Recreation Commission
Personnel Board
Planning Commission
Promotional Coordinating Committee
Tree Committee
APPOINTED OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS
Appointed Officials
Katie Lichtig
Christine Dietrick
Department Heads
Charles Bourbeau
Michael Codron
Steve Gesell
Charlie Hines
Monica Irons
Derek Johnson
Carrie Mattingly
Shelly Stanwyck
Jay Walter
A-13
City Manager
City Attorney
Director of Finance & Information Technology
Assistant City Manager
Police Chief
Fire Chief
Director of Human Resources
Director of Community Development
Director of Utilities
Director of Parks and Recreation
Director ofPublic Works
ORGANIZATION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Police
Patrol
Traffic Safety
CITY
ATTORNEY
Fire
Fire, Medical & Haz Mat
Emergency Response
CITIZENS
MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
CITY
MANAGER
Public
Works
Engineering
Transportation
Utilities
Water
Sewer
ADVISORY
BODIES
Community
Development
Long Range Planning
Development Review
Investigations Hazard Prevention Maintenance Services: Utilities Resource Building & Safety
Neighborhood Services Fire Inspections Streets, Parks, Bldgs Conservation CDBG Administration
Animal Regulation Disaster Planning
Parks &
Recreation
Recreation Programs
Ranger Services
Park Planning
Golf Course
Public Art
Human
Resources
Recruitment
Labor Relations
Fair Employment
Risk Management
Human Relations
Appointed by the City Council
A-14
Whale Rock Reservoir Housing
Finance &
Information Tech
Budget
Accounting & Revenue
GIS Management
Information Technology
Su or! Services
Administration
Natural Resources
Economic Development
Cultural Activities
City Clerk Services
General Administration
-Appointed by the City Manager
AWARDS
GFOA. The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA)
presented a Distinguished Budget Presentation Award to the City of San Luis Obispo, California for our
two-year budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2011.
In order to receive this award, a governmental unit must publish a budget document that meets program
criteria as a policy document, as an operations guide, as a financial plan and as a communications
device.
The award is valid for a period of two years only. We believe our current budget continues to conform
to program requirements.
GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
Distinguished
Budget Presentation
Award
City of San Luis Obispo
California
Foo-lhc lliennium lleginnlng
July 1, 2011
A-15
AWARDS
CSMFO. For our 2009-11 Financial Plan, the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers
(CSMFO) presented the City with Awards for Excellence in all four of its budget categories: Operating
Budgeting (two-year award), Capital Budgeting, Public Communications and Budget Innovation. We
believe our current budget continues to conform to program requirements.
Cerdl1<•te or Aw•rd
For
J:):etdltmte in bmol'«tion in Budgeting
Fiscal Year 2009-1010
Oly of San Lub Obispo
4'N<>ot<~JV:1-t•,ilnl4.-.~o~,t.l,':,Jo.,t~<>~Wl"VJI.of~,10!(.1..f .. 0:".1tolli.1lM!"~"'·'(\"lW~Uti.._.,_,.IJ!T>W:rJW;
(:i'11.tilJJII~
E~w:e/lcmt·e iul'nblie Cmn/llltllicatimt.~
Ft:~wr y,,w· 2009-2010
A-16
c;m1firot<ofAw;trd
r·nr
Hxcellmce in Cnpilill Budgeting
1'/scnl ••ear 2009-20111
Exee/Je11ct! in Operating Bm{r,retiug
Fiscal Year 2009-2010
Section B
POLICIES & OBJECTIVES
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
OVERVIEW
The overall goal of the City's Financial Plan is to
link what we want to accomplish over the next two
years with the resources required to do so. Formal
statements of fiscal policies and major objectives
provide the foundation for achieving this goal.
In the "parent" 20 11-13 Financial Plan document,
this section outlines the policies used in guiding the
preparation and management of the City's overall
budget, the major objectives to be accomplished and
status of prior plan major City goals.
For the 2011-13 Financial Plan Supplement, this
section is composed of two major parts:
1. Budget and Fiscal Policies
2. Major City Goals for 2011-13
BUDGET AND FISCAL POLICIES
The following budget and fiscal policies appear in
the 2011-13 Financial Plan:
• Financial Plan Purpose and Organization
• Financial Reporting and Budget Administration
• General Revenue Management
• User Fee Cost Recovery Goals
• Enterprise Funds Fees and Rates
• Revenue Distribution
• Investments
• Appropriations Limitation
• Fund Balance and Reserves
• Capital Improvement Management
• Capital Financing and Debt Management
• Human Resource Management
• Productivity
• Contracting for Services
No changes to the Budget and Fiscal Policies
adopted as part of the 2011-13 Financial Plan are
recommended in this supplement.
B-1
MAJOR CITY GOALS
Background. The fundamental purpose of the
City's Financial Plan is to link what we want to
accomplish over the next two years with the
resources required to do so. The two-year Financial
Plan process approved by the Council does this by:
1. Identifying the most important, highest priority
things for us to accomplish for the community.
2. Establishing a reasonable timeframe and
organizational responsibility for achieving them.
3. Allocating the resources necessary to do so.
As part of the 2011-13 Financial Plan, the Council
adopted four Major City Goals, which represent the
most important, highest priority goals for the City to
accomplish over the next two years.
Ongoing Status Reporting. To ensure clarity about
the objective and to measure progress in achieving
it, the Council also approved detailed work programs
and "action plans" for each major City goal.
Accordingly, an essential component of the goal-
setting process is to report on the City's progress on
an ongoing basis to ensure we stay "on track" in
accomplishing them.
For this reason, along with "ad hoc" reporting on an
ongoing basis, staff presents formal reports to the
Council on the status of Major City Goals at least
three times during the year: Fall Quarter, Mid-Year
Budget Review and the Preliminary Budget. As
such, this part of the Financial Plan Supplement
includes a comprehensive status report on the City's
progress in achieving Major City Goals.
It also includes briefer status reports for "other
Council objectives" for 2011-13 as well as for
"carryover goals and objectives" from 2009-11.
This is followed by a summary chart on the status of
major Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects as of
June 30, 2012.
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
INTRODUCTION: STATUS OF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
OVERVIEW
This report details the status of Major City Goals
and Other Important Council Objectives set by the
Council as part of the 2011-13 Financial
Organization. The "report card" is followed by a
short summary of notable changes from the original
action plan. After this is a more detailed report on
each Major City Goal and Other Important Council
Objective, which shows the objective, action plan as
adopted by the Council, any
revisions and a brief status Plan as of June 30, 2012. In general, we are
on track in accomplishing these objectives
based on the work programs adopted by the
Council.
Report Card. The following is a quick
"report card" on the status of Major City
Goals and Other Important Council
Objectives based on the "action plans"
approved by the Council as part of the
2011-13 Financial Plan.
As a benchmark, at June 30, 2012, we are
50% through the two-year Financial Plan
period. Most of the goals and objectives are
Important Note
Many of these are
multi-year goals that
have activities
associated with them
that go beyond the
two-year 2011-13
time frame. This
status report is
focused on approved
"Action Plan" tasks
as of June 30, 2012.
summary as of June 30, 2012.
Revisions are displayed as
follows:
• Additions are shown m
italics;
• Date changes are shown in
italics and highlighted in a
separate column; and
• Deletions are shown in
strikeout.
near or exceed this level, with most showing good
Shorter reports are provided for
"Address as Resources Permit"
for 2011-13 as well as for "carryover goals" from
2009-11.
progress.
Report Card: 2011-13 Major City Goals & Other Important Council Objectives
Percent Complete as of June 30, 2012 Per Actions Plan Tasks
MAJOR CITY GOALS
Economic Development
Preservation of Essential
Services & Fiscal Health
Neighborhood Wellness
Traffic Congestion Relief
OTHER IMPORTANT
COUNCIL OBJECTIVES
Open Space Preservation
Infrastructure Maintenance
Planning: Update Land Use &
Circulation Element
Affordable Housing/Homeless
Services
,...
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
B-2
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
INTRODUCTION: STATUS OF GOALS AND OBJECTNES
Report Card: 2011-13 Address as Resources Permit
Percent Complete as of June 30, 2012
I I I I I I
Climate Protection
1 I I I I I
Parks and Recreation
I I I I I
Historic Preservation
I I I I I I
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ACTION PLAN CHANGES
As noted above, in general we are on track in
accomplishing these goals and objectives based on
the work programs adopted by the Council. Notable
changes from the original action plans are noted
under each goal.
NEXT STEPS
Staff will present the next "formal report" to the
Council in November 2012 at the "Setting the
Table" budget workshop as part of 2013-15 Goal-
Setting and Financial Plan process. In the interim,
staff will keep the Council up-to-date on the status
of major projects through agenda reports, Council
Notes and other briefing opportunities.
B-3
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
STATUS OF MAJOR CITY GOALS
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ill i
Objective. Increase focus on economic development. Support creation of head-of-household jobs through
developing strategies for infrastructure, focusing on promising growth sectors, and expediting desired economic
activity. Expand collaboration with Cal Poly, Cuesta, business community and responsible agencies.
Action Plan
Task Current Revised
Economic Development Strategic Plan
1. Create a Project Plan to guide development of the Economic Development Strategic Complete
Plan.
2. Conduct research and analysis with the assistance of local experts and utilize current Complete
census data to identify the characteristics that will defme "head ofhouseholdjobs" for
the purpose of guiding the Strategic Plan process. Conduct baseline research on
metrics that may be used to evaluate progress towards accomplishment of the Major
City Goal.
3. Create a stakeholder group consisting of residents, business owners, property owners, Complete
and representatives of the County, Economic Vitality Corporation (EVC), Chamber of
Commerce, Downtown Association and other community groups to provide input on
the scope of work for the request for proposals (RFP).
4. Issue an RFP and scope ofwork for a contract to develop a City of San Luis Obispo Complete
Strategic Plan for Economic Development.
5. Execute the consultant contract, develop strategic plan, and present recommended ~ 7/12
Strategic Plan to Council for consideration including an implementation strategy for
the 2012-13 fiscal year.
6. Implement the new Economic Development Strategic Plan. Ongoing
Infrastructure in Expansion Areas
1. Develop an RFP for the analysis of infrastructure requirements in the Margarita and ~ 8/12
Airport areas, with a scope of work to include a strategy for phasing and financing of
key infrastructure components needed to move development forward and support
creation of head of household jobs.
2. Develop and present a program for Council consideration based on the YH-3/13
recommendations in the report.
Collaboration Committee
1. Continue to invest in the goals of the Collaboration Committee as a partner with the Ongoing
County, Cal Poly, and the business community in improving the entrepreneurial
culture of the community in an effort to create head of household jobs. Continue to
work with Cuesta College, the EVC and the business community to increase
opportunities that facilitate job growth.
B-4
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
STATUS OF MAJOR CITY GOALS
Status Summary: 50% Complete. The following is a summary of accomplishments and important next steps
for this goal.
Activity within the Economic Development Program included several exciting developments during this period
such as:
• The Economic Development Strategic Plan process continues to make progress utilizing the services of the
consultant to conduct four community outreach workshops associated with development of the Plan. A draft
Strategic Plan has been the subject of a community forum and Planning Commission review. The final Plan
is slated to be presented to Council in July. Updates and background information are available online
at: http://v.tww.slocity.org/economicdevelopment/strategicplan!plan.asp.
• A City Council Study Session was held regarding a potential development agreement with Chevron to enable
the installation of more than 50% of the public facilities (such as transportation infrastructure, water
distribution lines, and stormwater infrastructure) identified in the Airport Area Specific Plan. Staff continues
to make progress in discussions with Chevron Corporation regarding a development agreement that would
include the installation of approximately $16 million in infrastructure by Chevron as part of its SLO Tank
Farm project. The discussions have focused on a method to provide for reimbursement of those costs that are
beyond Chevron's fair share. That reimbursement will come primarily from the fees paid by future
development. Fee credits are also proposed as a reimbursement method and staff is working with Chevron on
a concept of crediting impact fees, as well as building permit and plan check fees for future businesses that
choose to develop within the SLO Tank Farm. Such an agreement allows the City to put needed infrastructure
in place, and allows Chevron to create attractive business park sites for new and expanding business that
would be subject to lower fees.
• The City Council approved a public-private partnership with Digital West Networks for completion of the
fiber-optic cable ring around the City and to improve access to high speed internet for businesses.
• The business friendly website (www.openforbusinessinslo.com), launched through a joint effort of the City
and the Chamber of Commerce, has been updated to include space available listings, and promotional
materials have been developed to promote the website to visitors and local businesses looking to expand.
• The Collaboration Committee work has been transferred to the Small Business Development Center at Cal
Poly. Ongoing work continues to assure that growing businesses get needed assistance via coordination of
available services and entrepreneurial forums. A small business incubator, initially focusing on Cal Poly
student entrepreneurs, is slated to open in June.
B-5
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
STATUS OF MAJOR CITY GOALS
PRESERVATION OF ESSENTIAL SERVICES AND FISCAL HEALTH
Objective. Adopt a budget that sustains the city's short and long-term fiscal health, preserves public health and
safety and other essential services in line with residents' priorities, and includes cost reduction strategies.
Action Plan
1. Identify candidate departments for one structured organizational review. Issue
request for proposals (RFP) for consulting services to systematically address
operating performance, cost reductions, and opportunities to improve service.
Complete reviews and present to City Manager.
2. Continue to review and implement ideas for savings or increased revenues as
recommended by staff and community members.
3. Evaluate at least four opportunities for managed competition in City functions as
identified in prior and current organizational reviews.
4. Perform focused overview of City's organizational structure to identify potential for
reorganization, combination, or other modifications to improve efficiency and reduce
cost.
12/12
Ongoing
Ongoing
12/12
5. Using framework set forth in the initial2006 analysis, benchmark key City financial 6/12
and outcome measures with comparable communities. Develop a schedule for
updating benchmark analysis on a recurring basis.
6. Determine viability and cost versus savings potential of changes to variable frequency 6/13
drives of certain large motors in existing facilities, and expanded lighting control, for
possible inclusion in the 2013-15 Financial Plan.
Continue to develop, review,
support of fiScal sustamabllity .
', '-. ~ ' . . ' '
1. Develop short term and long term strategy for personnel cost containment and receive
approval from Council prior to labor negotiations.
2. Negotiate cost containment actions through ongoing negotiation process with all
employee groups.
3. Establish a process to periodically review and monitor personnel costs and the impact
of those costs on overall financial health.
. . .
Ensure the stability and ·.ti,., .... ,,iro
1. Examine threats to the City's Utility Users Tax revenue from federal and state
legislation. Identify actions and develop plan to address problems as needed.
2. Conduct Business License Tax audit with Franchise Tax Board data.
B-6
Complete
Ongoing
Ongoing
6/12
6/12
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
STATUS OF MAJOR CITY GOALS
Task Current Revised
3. Conduct Transient Occupancy Tax audits.
4. Explore the possibility of establishing a storm drain utility and receive Council
direction.
Work with Council and thecomm11nitytoreO.ewMeasure Y
1. Hire consultant to conduct public opinion research.
2. Conduct public opinion research.
3. Present survey results and analysis to Council.
4. Determine optimal timing of ballot measure.
5. Initiate public information/education program.
12/12
2/13
Complete
Complete
Complete
6/12
Ongoing
. Iden!ify and address lollg-term li~bilides ~~atar~4~P~~~t to bsc~I sust~i~~t~}Jk\f .. jL~:> <;,~~j~'··.. }~~~·[:~ ... ·. . '"' f ·Jt·
1. Refine five-year capital improvement program that will responsibly protect the City's 12112
infrastructure assets, including building facilities, and develop plan for funding as
needed.
2. Update Fleet Management Policy to reflect revised fleet life cycles. Develop long-
term fleet replacement schedule. establish Fleet internal serviee fHfl:a ifdetermiaed to
be appropriate.
3. Evaluate Information Technology replacement needs. Develop long-term
replacement schedule. Iaeatify appropriate fuaaing strategy, iaelaaiag poteatial
laformatioa Teehaology iateraal serviee fi:m:EI.
4. Identify funding strategies for Fleet and Information Technology replacement needs.
Establish internal services fonds if determined to be appropriate.
5. Review liability and workers compensation claims trends and establish a plan of
funding if needed.
Continue to closely review aml monitpr the' City's fiscal condition '· ....
1. Update General Fund Five-Year Forecast at least twice annually, at mid-year and with
recommended budget.
2. Prepare focused reports on areas of interest to city management and Council.
6/13
6113
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Complete
Status Summary: 35% Complete. The following is a summary of accomplishments and important next steps
for this goal.
B-7
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
STATUS OF MAJOR CITY GOALS
Cost Savings
The 2011-13 Financial Plan includes an expectation that the City will realize cost savings through efficiency and
effectiveness measures implemented over the two-year financial plan period. These savings measures include
ideas generated by the public through the financial plan process, by staff through the Non-Operating Budget
Balancers (NOBBs) exercise, and by consultants through bi-annual organizational assessments. The amount of
savings that the City is seeking through this effort corresponds to a 3-to-1 return on investment with respect to the
cost of conducting the organizational assessment. Overall, the City is planning to achieve $50,000 in savings
during 2011-12, and an additional $100,000 in savings during 2012-13. City staff has formalized the process
whereby ideas for cost-savings generated by efficiency measures and organizational assessments will be
measured. Staff has also started the process of implementing and accounting for these ideas. Additionally, in June
2012, the City refinanced lease revenue refunding bonds that were used to fund various land purchases and
improvements at the Damon-Garcia Sports Fields. This will result in approximately $65,000 in annual savings to
the General Fund from 2013-2029.
Personnel Cost Containment
The 2011-13 Financial Plan also assumes employee concessions to achieve a balanced budget while retaining
General Fund reserves at or near policy levels. Council provided staff with labor relations objectives in September
and these objectives were shared with all employee groups with agreements expiring at year end. The objectives
include a $3.1 million City-wide reduction of total compensation costs and pension cost containment or
reductions. A resolution adopted by Council on December 6, 2011 shifted the entire eight percent employer paid
member contribution (EPMC) to unrepresented management, department head, and appointed officials effective
January 5, 2012. A resolution adopted by Council on March 6, 2012 approved a four-year agreement with the
International Association of Firefighters Local 3523, phasing in the full nine percent EPMC to the employees,
introduced a second tier pension benefit, and included no cost of living increases for the term of the agreement. A
resolution adopted by Council on April 10, 2012 approved phasing in the entire eight percent EPMC to
unrepresented confidential employees, introduced a second tier pension benefit, and included no cost of living
increases or changes to the City contribution to health insurance for the term of the agreement. A resolution
adopted by Council on May 15,2012 approved a three-year agreement with the Police Staff Officer's Association
(SLOPSOA), phasing in a 4.5% salary reduction (as these employees currently pay the full member contribution
to CalPERS), introduced a second tier pension benefit, included no cost of living increases for the term of the
agreement, and included no increase in the City contribution to health insurance until December 2014. Also on
May 15, 2012, Council approved a letter of agreement with the Fire Battalion Chiefs' Association (BCs), phasing
in 7.5% salary reduction (as this unit currently pays the full member contribution to CalPERS) and introducing a
second tier pension benefit consistent with the agreement with the Fire Union.
Together, these agreements achieve $1,612,000 in savings, or approximately 52% of the overall $3.1 million
reduction objective. Negotiation discussions with the San Luis Obispo City Employees Association (SLOCEA)
reached impasse and SLOCEA requested fact finding through the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB).
Negotiations with the Police Officer's Association are ongoing. Staff remains focused on achieving Council's
labor relations objectives.
Measure Y
On December 13, 2011, City staff presented the results of the 2011 Citizen Satisfaction Survey to the City
Council with a recommendation to direct staff to continue to evaluate placing the reauthorization of the City's
half-cent sales tax (Measure Y) on the general election ballot in November 2012, and return to the City Council in
spring 2012 with an update. The Council accepted this recommendation and staff is moving forward with an
outreach effort. Information gathered through this effort will inform staff's recommendation regarding the timing
of Measure Y reauthorization. Staff is scheduled to provide the Council with an update on June 5, 2012. If, after
the update, Council wants to move forward with reauthorization on the November 2012 ballot, staff will return to
the Council in July with an agenda item to place the measure on the ballot.
B-8
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
STATUS OF MAJOR CITY GOALS
Long Term Liabilities
Work on five-year asset plans will correspond to timelines for the development of the draft 2013-15 Financial
Plan. This work is part of the Public Works Department assessment implementation plan for General Fund
infrastructure.
Benchmark Study
The benchmark cities used in the 2006 study were reviewed to determine if they are still comparable to San Luis
Obispo. The City of Ventura was removed and the City of Paso Robles added in order to provide as accurate a
comparison as possible. Using framework set forth in the initial 2006 analysis, Finance staff have begun
compiling key financial and outcome measures of San Luis Obispo and the comparable communities. The
Department Head team reviewed the list of benchmarks used in 2006 and provided input for the current study.
Utility User Tax (UUT) Analysis and Potential Ballot Measure
Staff explored cost-effective options for a review of the City's UUT practices, and on September 20, 2011,
Council approved such a contract with MuniServices. This agreement provides for a UUT compliance and
revenue protection program and will assist the City in identifying and correcting errors or omissions that cause
under-realized revenues. Additionally, these services include assistance with development of a ballot measure
aimed at updating the City's UUT ordinance language and protecting it against erosion due to new legislation or
lawsuits. The citizen satisfaction survey mentioned above also included questions related to a potential UUT
ballot measure so that Council can decide how to proceed. On June 5, 2012, staff will ask Council for approval to
place an item modernizing the UUT ordinance on the November 2012 ballot.
Equipment Replacement Funding
Staff have reviewed all fleet equipment assets and completed a comprehensive equipment replacement
spreadsheet which identifies the timing of projected fleet purchases and the replacement funds needed over the
life of the assets. Development of a "condition assessments" per each fleet replacement and an update of the Fleet
Management Policy have been postponed until the Fleet Manager position is filled permanently. Information
Technology (IT) staff are now starting on a similar spreadsheet for IT hardware and software. Following the
completion of these two schedules, the next step will be to assess available funding, develop a funding plan, and
establish an appropriate funding strategy for equipment replacement. The organizational assessment of the Public
Works Department recommended utilizing an internal service fund for the City's Fleet equipment. However, a
great deal of analysis is necessary to determine if this financing avenue is appropriate for the City.
Business License Tax Audit
After a successful effort to ensure business license compliance from residential rental property owners, staff have
begun a Citywide business license tax audit. With cooperation from the Downtown Association, the effort began
in the Downtown core area. Staff canvassed this area, recorded the names of businesses that did not appear in the
City's business license database, HdL, and notified these businesses of the requirement to hold a license if
conducting business in the City. This process resulted in new business licenses issued in the Downtown area. The
next step in this project is underway, utilizing data from the Franchise Tax Board (FTB). This information was
cross-checked with the data in HdL and is being reviewed for anomalies to confirm which businesses are not in
compliance and will be subject to the enforcement process. Staff are also working with the City Attorney's Office
to streamline the current collection process to ensure the effectiveness of these methods and will implement the
new enforcement efforts simultaneously with the FTB effort. The next step will be to mail enforcement letters to
the businesses that staff believe should have a license.
Departmental Efficiencies
On January 17, 2012, Council approved the Water Reclamation Facility Sustainable Solutions Turnkey energy
efficiency project investment grade analysis and 50% project design. This project is a public/private partnership
with PG&E. The investment grade analysis is moving forward with an estimated completion date of November
2012. In anticipation of Council approval of the final proposed energy efficiency project, a funding request has
been incorporated into the 2012-13 Financial Plan Supplement.
B-9
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
STATUS OF MAJOR CITY GOALS
NEIGHBORHOOD WELLNESS
II
Objective. Embrace and implement pro-active code enforcement and Neighborhood Wellness Policies.
Action Plan
Task Current Revised
1. Community coordination on new program elements. Ongoing
2. Review City policy regarding voluntary compliance & evaluate Neighborhood :YH TBD
Services Team.
3. Create new job classification of Neighborhood Services Specialist. Complete
4. Develop public outreach program. Ia pfegFess Complete
5. Public outreach campaign. ~ Complete
6. Hire additional staff. Complete
7. Train new staff. ~ Complete
8. Begin "soft start" of program. 4,1.!.2. Complete
9. Council review of proposed changes to Municipal Code and code enforcement 4,1.!.2. Complete
procedures manual.
10. Begin full enforcement efforts. ~ Complete
11. Monitor progress and solicit feedback from external stakeholders. Ongoing
12. Database enhancements and information sharing improvements. Ongoing
Status Summary: 90% Complete. The following is a summary of accomplishments and important next steps
for this goal.
Internal Collaboration
An ongoing effort associated with the Neighborhood Wellness objectives is cross-training staff within several
departments to enhance enforcement and response efforts. Collaboration between Police, Fire, Parking Services
and the Code Enforcement Office has been established so the appropriate enforcement personnel are aware of
existing problems and can handle them efficiently. As an example, during a parking citation appeal one violator
indicated parking was difficult at the house he lived in because there were six residents. The Parking Manager
forwarded the information to the Code Enforcement Officer for follow-up.
Internal collaboration has been ongoing in the hiring of the new Neighborhood Services Specialist (NSS)
positions. The Neighborhood Services and Parking Services offices collaborated with Code Enforcement's
request for input and suggestions on the NSS job description, interview questions and interview panel
representation. The Neighborhood Services Manager has provided Code Enforcement with the current
B-10
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
STATUS OF MAJOR CITY GOALS
Neighborhood Enhancement Ordinance (NEO) enforcement training manual and printed Neighborhood
Enhancement Ordinance (NEO) outreach and education materials currently in use which will be modified to
reflect the new positions.
Policy Review
Staff was directed to review practices related to voluntary compliance of the regulations to determine when it is
appropriate to escalate the level of enforcement efforts. As suspected, there were uneven levels of enforcement
efforts between City departments responsible for these activities. For example, some departments escalate
enforcement very quickly while other departments allow time for compliance efforts. As a result of the review of
policies and practices, it was determined that strategic escalation of enforcement should occur Citywide. The
process will include three levels: a Notice to Correct (NTC), a Notice of Violation (NOV) and administrative
citations. The Notice to Correct will notify the violator of the code violations, warn of possible fines and establish
a timeline for action by the violator to avoid fines or fees. Based on the City's cost recovery for code enforcement
policies, fees will be doubled for any permit issued to correct code violations. If no action is taken within the
prescribed timeline, a Notice of Violation will be sent. The NOV will include an additional cost recovery charge
and an additional warning of impending citations. If the violator remains recalcitrant, staff will begin the
administrative citation process. This new process will not apply to the enforcement of noise violations, which are
already subject to the issuance of formal warnings for initial violations and administrative citations for both the
offender and the property owner for subsequent violations within any nine-month period. Additionally, no
changes are necessary for parking violations. There are no warnings for parking in yards or blocking a public
sidewalk. If the violation cannot be corrected immediately, a citation is issued. In April, the City Council
reviewed and approved Municipal Code and procedure changes to shift focus to proactive enforcement with an
emphasis on strong public outreach.
Per Council's direction, in November 2011, the Neighborhood Services Team (NST) met with the Police Chief
and new Community Development Director to consider the involvement of neighborhood residents on the Team.
After discussing several ways to keep community members meaningfully involved, it was decided that City
resident "neighborhood stewards" will be invited to attend monthly NST meetings led by the Neighborhood
Services Manager and the Chief Building Official. This will provide an opportunity for neighborhood
representatives to be more involved in the transition to a proactive code enforcement program and to provide
direct input regarding the issues that concern residents in the community. NST representatives from all City
departments will meet quarterly without the neighborhood stewards in attendance to discuss case specific
concerns and issues. This will allow the internal (staff only) NST to discuss pending cases, while protecting the
confidentiality of the property owners involved.
Public Outreach
Staff received input from the neighborhood and student groups regarding the public outreach efforts. Because this
audience is a diverse group, efforts were made to extend outreach through multiple media sources.
Communication with the community will be ongoing as programs achieve the greatest amount of code
compliance through education and outreach.
Front Yard Parking
The Council directed the Community Development Department staff to revise and clarify regulations regarding
where vehicles can be parked in the front yards of residences. Parking in front yards outside of the driveway has
been an ongoing issue in some neighborhoods, particularly in parking districts with a limited number of on-street
parking permits. The new regulations will be a component of the Neighborhood Wellness Major City Goal and
enforced by the Neighborhood Services Specialists. Communication with neighborhood groups, students, and
property owners is critical to the successful implementation of the new regulations. Staff has discussed the
proposed new parking regulations and enforcement with the Student Community Liaison Committee (SCLC),
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN), and Cal Poly Associated Students, Inc. (ASI). A public forum was
held at the Ludwick Center on April 4, 2012, and all property owners in the City's parking districts were invited
B-11
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
STATUS OF MAJOR CITY GOALS
(over 1,100 notices were sent). The Planning Commission has discussed the issue twice, including a study session
in April2011. Front yard parking amendments were heard by the Planning Commission on April25, 2012 and the
City Council on May 15, 2012.
Transition of Duties
Staff has discussed the timing for transition of the NEO duties from the Police Department Student Neighborhood
Assistance Program (SNAP) program to the Community Development Building and Safety Division. Based on
the timelines identified in the work plan, NEO duties will be transitioned from SNAP to the Neighborhood
Services Specialists in late April to early May 2012. At that time, the training for the new positions will be
sufficient to begin full implementation of the program.
B-12
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
STATUS OF MAJOR CITY GOALS
TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF
Objective. Continue efforts on projects and programs which relieve traffic congestion (like street modifications,
intersection improvements, pedestrian improvements, bicycle facilities, sidewalks, trip reduction programs, traffic
signal operations, LOVR interchange, Prado Road and public transit).
Action Plan
1. Maintain existing transit levels for local and regional services with uncertain levels of
State and Federal funding.
2. Implement recommendation in the Short Range Transit Plan if funding is available.
3. Work with Regional Transit Authority (RT A) and other transit providers to identify
potential cost savings and sharing to reduce costs and improve efficiency.
4. Explore alternative fuel and vehicle type to offset operational costs.
1. Begin minor intersection widening, installation of northbound Dual Left Tum Lanes and
restriping as part of Village At Broad improvements.
2. Complete Village At Broad improvements on Broad Street.
B-13
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Complete
Complete
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
STATUS OF MAJOR CITY GOALS
Tasl• CUJTent Revised
1. Complete and present 2010 Annual Traffic Safety Report to Council for approval. Complete
2. Complete and present 2010/11 Biennial Traffic Operations Report to Council for approval. 6/12
3. Implement Safety & Operations Report Recommendations. Ongoing
4. Complete and present 2011 Annual Traffic Safety Report to Council for approval. 11/12
1. Complete design.
2.
1. Complete design. Complete
2. Begin construction. 7112
3. Complete Traffic Signal Timing and Operations Optimization. 8112
1. Complete design. Complete
2. Begin construction. 6/12
3. Complete construction. 12/12
1. Complete construction plans and specifications. 10/12
2. Complete right of way acquisition. 2/13
3. Pursue additional funding. Ongoing
B-14
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
STATUS OF MAJOR CITY GOALS
, __ ,, __ ,_====""
Task Current Revised
4. Implement phased improvements as new development occurs and fees are collected in the
LOVR sub area.
5. Complete detailed preparation of Bonded Indebtedness oflocal funding component.
Pism~ ·a._. Bucbon NeighborhQod Traffic Manag~meniJirlprovemefit~:
{ ,. ' c ' '. ~ ' ' • ' :.:: ' '· ' ,· '•'
1. Complete design.
2. Begin construction.
3. Complete post project Studies.
1. Begin Update of the Bicycle Transportation Plan.
2. Update the City's Bicycle Transportation Plan to maintain eligibility for state grant
funding.
Ta~~ F~rm Road I~i~rsection lmpr(lyements
'' v •;',,"\,,, , F • , .•, '•c'•
1. Complete project design.
2. Begin construction.
1. Complete construction documents.
2. Pursue additional funding.
3. Award contract and begin construction.
1. Obtain California Highway Patrol (CHP), Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), and Public
Utilities Commission (PUC) approvals.
2. Complete project design.
3. Pursue additional funding.
Bob Jones fity-to~Sea Trail Connection to LOVR ;:
B-15
Ongoing
TBD
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
12/12
7112
Ongoing
6113
12/12
6/13
Ongoing
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
STATUS OF MAJOR CITY GOALS
Task Current Revised
1. Pursue outside funding for trail connections. Ongoing
2. Complete construction drawings. 9112
:
.:~,;.~. ·~i~·: ~t Bob Jon:e~ City-to~Sea Trail Connection to Octagon Barn ... ••• .:: .. : ·' .. \~.: .;(··
1. Seek/obtain funding for study. Complete
2. Complete project study. 2/14
3. Pursue additional funding. Ongoing
4. Complete project design and environmental review. TBD
5. Complete construction drawings. TBD
6. Complete construction. TBD
. <•:·;;· ~;i~>: .. 'zr· • <\ 11~·.~;~· '!· :• :.i; . Otl}.er P}:o)ects'[~a.t Rect~ce Tr'a.f:Qc Cpligestion . . . ··~ ?
;.:··.·.:: .. · · :: :I.e<·> : />::.: · •:;;;·::·:· ··<.::.s:·•::y: /< . ·:.
1. Complete curb ramps, sidewalks, on-street bicycle facility paving, and striping Ongoing
improvements in conjunction with City street paving projects.
2. Implement Neighborhood Traffic Management program and projects. Ongoing
3. Conduct bi-annual vehicle, bicycle traffic counts, speed surveys and travel time studies. Ongoing
4. Complete miscellaneous bicycle facility improvements identified in the Bicycle Ongoing
Transportation Plan, as resources permit.
5. Develop a list, in conjunction with the Bicycle Committee, of streets that would benefit Ongoing
from increased street sweeping and coordinate with Street Maintenance to use
miscellaneous sweeping hours, when available, to increase frequency.
6. Seek funding for the design and construction of bikeways and pedestrian paths within the Ongoing
City.
7. Seek funding to educate and promote bicycling, walking and transit as alternative forms of Ongoing
transportation.
8. Provide more bicycle parking through the City's "Racks with Plaques" program. Ongoing
Status Summary: 45% Complete. The following highlights key accomplishments so far and important next
steps:
Various projects and activities have been delayed due to the extended absences of several key staff in the
Transportation division. Details on progress and delays are listed below.
B-16
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
STATUS OF MAJOR CITY GOALS
The Los Osos Valley Road Interchange project has been delayed due to a lawsuit filed by adjacent property
owners. With the lawsuit now resolved, right of way acquisitions can proceed. The construction plans are 65%
complete, and appraisals for the needed property and easements are being updated.
Additional traffic congestion relief efforts on Los Osos Valley Road under design include the addition of a left
turn pocket east of Froom Ranch Way and a third westbound through lane between Madonna Road and Laguna
Lane.
The developer of the first residential subdivision within the Margarita Area Specific Plan has submitted public
improvement plans for the Prado Road extension abutting the subdivision. Significant grading and drainage work
has been started and the developer has submitted building permit applications for the model homes.
The installation of a traffic signal at Grand and Highway 101 is complete.
Circulation modifications at the intersection of Foothill and Tassajara are complete
Construction of downtown beautification improvements is complete.
The Pismo and Buchon Neighborhood Traffic Management improvements have been well received by a majority
of the public. Follow up studies will be undertaken in 2013 to learn the effects of the improvements.
Improvements completed along the Bob Jones City-to-Sea Trail include the installation of a bridge over San Luis
Obispo Creek to provide a direct connection to the intersection of South Higuera and Prado Road.
The Tank Farm/Broad intersection improvements and the mid-Higuera improvements will be constructed in
summer 2012.
Street paving work for 2011 is complete. Design work is complete for 2012 Microsurfacing and Paving projects
with construction scheduled for summer 2012.
Curb ramp construction is complete in Pavement Area 5 in preparation for summer 2012 paving work. Sidewalk
repairs are also underway in Area 5.
Conversion of the traffic signals acquired through the relinquishment of Highway 227 from the State has been
delayed due to staffs focus on other higher priority projects, as well as the long-term absence of a Signal
Maintenance Technician.
The biennial Traffic Operations Report is being delayed due to other staff priorities. The annual Traffic Safety
Report will be on schedule, but will be reduced in scope.
City staff has met with Regional Transit Authority (RT A) and San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
(SLOCOG) staff to identify opportunities to share costs and improve efficiency. In December 2011, as a partial
follow-up to both audits, the SLOCOG Board approved setting aside $15,000 in "State Transit Assistance" funds
toward a joint scheduling project in the Central Area. On February 7, 2012, RTA, SLOCOG and City staff held a
kickoff meeting for a SLO Transit Route 2/RTA Route 10 efficiencies study. Through this project, route
efficiency and timing is being reviewed to determine how best to coordinate services between the RTA and SLO
Transit. Preliminary results are anticipated in April 2012. The effort requires the use of outside resources in order
to gain an objective perspective on current coordination issues as well as to scope potential opportunities to
improve service deployment. RT A is the lead agency on this joint project; both agencies will use half of the
Transportation Development Act (TDA) third quarter funds ($7 ,500) towards this effort.
B-17
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
STATUS OF OTHER IMPORTANT OBJECTIVES
Objective. Continue efforts to acquire, preserve, protect, and maintain open space in our greenbelt. Begin
implementation of the master plan for City-owned agricultural lands at Calle Joaquin. Complete and begin
implementation of the updated conservation plan for Irish Hills Natural Reserve. Prepare a Conservation Plan for
Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve. Create a plan for maintenance of Laguna Lake and Park, including potential
funding.
Action Plan
1. Continue participation in planning and acquisition efforts that at a minimum include:
(a) the Chevron Tank Farm property and adjacent open space lands; (b) City-or Land
Conservancy-held conservation easements on lands near Camp San Luis Obispo; (c)
Righetti Hill in the Orcutt Specific Plan Area; (d) "Upper Goldtree Vineyard Tract"
lots (King and Filipponi/Twisselman properties) above Johnson Avenue; and (e) the
Filipponi/Denbow and Mountainbrook Church properties at the end of Calle Joaquin.
2. Support actions to implement the Agricultural Master Plan for the Calle Joaquin
Agricultural Reserve.
3. Complete Update of the Conservation Plan for Irish Hills Natural Reserve, and begin
implementation activities.
4. Continue implementation of elements of City adopted Conservation Plans for: Johnson
Ranch; South Hills; Stenner Springs; and the Bob Jones Trail.
5. Continue efforts to improve signage, trail conditions, and environmental restoration
programs.
6. Continue to participate and oversee City-sponsored or directed mitigation projects,
including the Los Osos Valley Road interchange, Bob Jones Trail environmental
enhancements, and various private mitigation and enhancement projects throughout
the City.
7. Continue leadership role in management ofthe City's natural waterways through Zone
9 projects, and provide administrative oversight to the Stormwater Management
Program.
8. Preparation and completion of a Conservation Plan for Reservoir Canyon Natural
Reserve.
Develop a Plan for Mailltenance of Laguna Like and,P:lr~ Including Pote~tial .
F'~ding r ·~.: . \;~ ; ....
1. Conduct and complete research on public and private grant and loan sources.
B-18
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
6/12
',·,. /
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
STATUS OF OTHER IMPORTANT OBJECTIVES
Task Current Revised
2. Identify interested parties and groups. Begin a series of public workshops to develop a ~ Complete
community supported maintenance plan for Laguna Lake and for Laguna Lake Park as
it is affected by the maintenance plan. Develop an email group of participants and
provide electronic information updates to this group.
3. Complete public workshops for the maintenance plan. ~ 6112
4. Draft the maintenance plan and begin circulation. 6/12
5. Presentations of Draft Plan to: Stakeholders, Parks and Recreation Commission, and 11/12
Planning Commission for review, comment, and recommendations to the City
Council.
6. Adoption of Maintenance Plan by Council. 12/12
Status Summary: 60% Complete. The following is a summary of accomplishments and important next steps
for this goal.
Acquisition, Preservation and Protection of Open Space
1. Staff is participating in several acquisition efforts described above which are advancing satisfactorily.
Foremost among these is the Goldtree acquisition project, which has taken a challenging new turn but is
expected to be completed by the end of the fiscal year. Also, the Righetti property easements have been
completed and recorded.
2. Two grant proposals for the Bob Jones Trail extension and for several riparian enhancement projects have
been submitted to State agencies. Staff continue to work with the Central Coast Agriculture Network
(CCAN) to develop a management agreement for the site. This agreement is expected to be presented to
Council in the near future. In the meantime, a hay crop has been planted there.
3. The Irish Hills Conservation Plan was approved in July 2011. Staff has completed the jeep road
decommissioning, a trail workday on November 12, 2011, and several other trail events since that time,
resulting in the opening of approximately one mile of new trails. Two grant requests have been submitted
to the State of California for additional trail work funding support and for riparian restoration along
Froom Creek. Staff are awaiting word regarding the success of these applications.
4. A mitigation basin was installed at Johnson Ranch and construction of the skills area is moving forward at
Stenner Springs.
5. New signage is currently being installed primarily at Irish Hills, and at the Highland Drive and Patricia
Street trailheads as requested by residents.
6. Storm preparedness projects completed include: Andrews Street stormwater improvements; Park Street
sewer line replacement; silt removal at Hollyhock Lane and Los Osos Valley Road; and new riparian
plantings along the Bob Jones Trail.
7. "Winterization" work was completed and needs for next year are being identified and compiled. A greater
effort to obtain necessary permits will be undertaken for 2012 to ensure that the silt removal work below
Laguna Lake can be undertaken this summer.
8. The Reservoir Canyon Conservation Plan is underway, with a successful public workshop held on
January 31,2012 at the Ludwick Center. Staff is working with a Cal Poly graduate student to complete
the Conservation Plan and begin the adoption process in May 2012.
Laguna Lake Maintenance Plan
B-19
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
STATUS OF OTHER IMPORTANT OBJECTIVES
1-2. Research is progressing on public and private grant and loan sources for financing of the project. Staffis
investigating the permitting requirements for a variety of alternative sediment removal scenarios.
3-6. These work program items are expected to be completed on schedule.
B-20
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
STATUS OF OTHER IMPORTANT OBJECTIVES
INFRASTRUCTURE MAINTENANCE
!
Objective. Increase infrastructure maintenance and investment. Sustain an effective level of core existing
infrastructure and proactively protect and maintain physical assets (such as the downtown, streets, bikeways,
sidewalks, flood protection facilities, recreation facilities, City owned historic resources, and the urban forest).
Infrastructure Maintenance is a designated Measure Y priority.
1. Exterior Painting of Parks and Recreation Building Complete
2. Police Facility Air Volume Control Modifications Complete
3. Fire Station #3 Engine Bay Slab Replacement 6/13
4. City Hall Steps 10/12
1. Silt Removal ~ 10112
2. Broad Street Bank Reinforcement Design 6/13
3. Storm Drain Culvert Repair Design 6/13
4. Storm Drain Pipe Replacement-Ye ar 1 & Year 2 Year 1 -
Complete
Year 2-6/13
5. Toro Street Bank Stabilization 6/13
1. Playground Equipment Replacement 6/13
2. Meadow Park Roof Replacement Complete
3. Warden Bridge Deck/Mission Plaza Walkway Rehabilitation 6/13
1. Traffic Sign Maintenance Program-Year 1 & Year 2
B-21
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
STATUS OF OTHER IMPORTANT OBJECTIVES
Task Current Revised
2. Pavement Maintenance -Ye ar 1 & Year 2
3. Sidewalk Repair -Year 1 & Year 2
1. Laguna Lift Station
2. Calle Joaquin Lift Station Replacement
3. Wastewater Collection System Improvements-Year 1 & Year 2
4. Water Reclamation Facility Major Maintenance-Year 1 & Year 2
1. Operating program regular maintenance through:
Building, Flood Control, Golf Course, Landscape & Parks Maintenance, Natural
Resources Protection, Parking Operations, Ranger Program, Reservoir Operations,
Streets & Sidewalk, Swim Center, Traffic Signals & Lighting, Tree, Vehicle &
Equipment, Wastewater Collection, Water Distribution, Water Reclamation Facility,
Water Treatment
Year 1 -
Complete
Year 2-6f.H
~&6/13
12112
6/12 & 6/13
6/12 & 6/13
Ongoing
Year 2-10/12
Year 1
Complete
12/13
Status Summary: 20% Complete. The following is a summary of accomplishments and important next steps
for this goal.
The Laguna and Calle Joaquin Lift Station Replacement projects are 20% complete. A Request for Proposals
(RFP) for design services was approved by Council in August 2011, and a consultant is now under contract for
both lift station projects. In June 2012, staff will ask Council for approval to request bids for construction of
Laguna Lift Station, which is anticipated to begin in late summer of 2012. Construction of Calle Joaquin Lift
Station has been rescheduled to summer 2013 because of the additional time needed for land acquisition and some
unanticipated costs.
Several Water Distribution System Improvements projects are underway. The trench repair Job Order Contract is
currently in place and repairs are underway. Completion of the Water Reuse Automation Improvements is
anticipated in July 2012. A consultant is under contract for the Water Reuse Distribution Analysis and the project
is 90% complete.
All project work for the 2011-12 and 2012-13 Wastewater Collection System Improvements projects is underway.
In November 2011, two projects began construction, one of which was combined with another project to
maximize efficiencies in design and construction. The last project is 95% complete with design; construction is
expected to begin in summer 2012.
B-22
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
STATUS OF OTHER IMPORTANT OBJECTIVES
Playground equipment replacement work is completed at Meadow Park. Design work is on-going for Santa Rosa,
Sinsheimer, Johnson, and Emerson parks. The Meadow Park Restroom Roof replacement is complete. Design
work is ongoing on the Warden Bridge surface replacement.
Street paving work for 2011 is complete. Design is complete for the 2012 Microsurfacing and Paving projects
with construction scheduled in summer 2012. Sidewalk work is complete in Area 5 in advance of resurfacing
work. Work is underway in Area 6, scheduled for resurfacing work in summer of 2013.
Chorro Street paving project will be constructed in spring 2012.
Storm Drain Replacements Year 1 is finished with the completion of the storm drain work on Highland Drive.
Downtown parking lot resurfacing design work is 50% complete.
B-23
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
STATUS OF OTHER IMPORTANT OBJECTIVES
PLANNING: UPDATE LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENTS
Objective. Within the scope of the Strategic Growth Council (SGC) Grant, undertake an update of the Land Use
and Circulation Elements; including "Healthy Cities," complete streets, and pedestrian circulation policies.
Action Plan
Task Current Revised
1. Develop request for proposals (RFP) for consultant services Complete
2. Program initiation -P Ianning Commission and Council meetings ~ Complete
3. Task Force formation and public participation plan ~ Complete
4. Background report-current program evaluation, demographics, regulatory ~ 9112
framework, interviews, and outreach
5. EIR-e nvironmental setting/existing conditions report ~ 9/12
6. Policy updates -community workshops 11/12
7. New issues, including neighborhood identification, healthy cities, greenhouse gas 1113
reduction, pedestrian circulation, and complete streets policies and programs-
community workshops
8. Policy document -dra ft set of goals, policies and implementation measures 6/H 8/13 -
9. Land use plan recommendations -community workshops 6/13
10. Circulation plan recommendations-community workshops 8/13
11. EIR -project description and impact analysis including a fiscal analysis for the 12/13
updated elements underway. Assemble all current downtown design guidelines and
standards.
Status Summary: 7% Complete. The following is a summary of accomplishments and important next steps for
this goal.
A consultant team was selected to help lead this grant-funded project and a contract was finalized in January
2012. Council selected 17 residents to serve on a task force to provide input to the process and their first meeting
was held on April 18, 2012. The first public workshop was on May 16, 2012, and a survey modeled after the
1988 survey was distributed to all addresses in the City through April and May. Collection of data and evaluation
of policy status for the elements is underway, and the web page www.slo2035.com has been launched to provide
public access to all materials and dates associated with the effort. Finally, a neighborhood definition project has
been underway and will be completed within this quarter.
B-24
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
STATUS OF OTHER IMPORTANT OBJECTIVES
Work extending beyond 2011-2013 is reflected in the chart below.
Action Plan 2013-2015
Task Original Revised
12. EIR-Public Review Draft Release 1/14
13. Draft EIR and General Plan Update 1/14
14. Public Workshops and Hearings 2114
15. DEIR-Response to comments 8114
16. FinalEIR 9/14
17. Final General Plan 11/14
B-25
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
STATUS OF OTHER IMPORTANT OBJECTIVES
AFFORDABLE HOUSING/HOMELESS SERVICES
Objective. Continue to facilitate provision of affordable as well as market-rate housing and provide leadership in
implementing the County's 10-Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness.
Action Plan
Task Current Revised
1. Seek grants to facilitate affordable housing projects. Ongoing
2. Work with developers to include affordable housing units in projects and to Ongoing
complete housing projects in process.
3. Continue to implement Housing Element programs. Ongoing
4. Look for new opportunities to use Affordable Housing Fund and grant monies to Ongoing
leverage other funds for affordable housing projects.
5. Work with service providers and the Homeless Services Oversight Council (HSOC) Ongoing
director to understand needs of homeless population.
6. Continue HSOC participation to further the implementation of the 10-Year Plan. Ongoing
Status Summary: 50% Complete. The following is a summary of accomplishments and important next steps
for this goal.
Affordable Housing
The City received 12 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) applications for the 2012 Program Year,
including projects that meet each of the Council's adopted CDBG funding priorities. Staff coordinated a meeting
with the CIP Review Committee to develop preliminary recommendations to the Human Relations Commission
(HRC). On December 7, 2011, the HRC adopted funding recommendations for inclusion in the County 2012
Draft Action Plan. On February 21, 2012, Council approved funding allocations of $573,125 for the 2012 CDBG
Program Year. The preliminary funding estimate was provided to the City by the County based on available
information from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The recently adopted 2012
Federal budget included a 12% reduction in overall CDBG program funding. On March 13, 2012, HUD released
its new funding estimate for the County, which reflects the Federal budget reduction to the CDBG program and
mandate to use the American Communities Survey data as the basis for determining allocation amounts. This has
resulted in an 11.6% ($66,567) reduction to the City's 2012 Program Year allocation for a total allocation of
$506,658. On April 4, 2012, the HRC received a presentation on the proposed funding reductions and supported
staffs recommendations. On April 17, 2012, Council considered staffs proposed funding reductions and adopted
funding modifications, which will be forwarded to the County Board of Supervisors for inclusion in the 2012
Urban County Action Plan.
Staff researched the Housing-Related Parks (HRP) grant program which is designed to encourage cities and
counties to develop new residential housing by rewarding those jurisdictions that approve housing for low income
households. Funds from this grant program can be used for the creation of or improvements to park and recreation
facilities and recreation projects. Based on the number of new low income housing starts last year, the City
qualifies for the minimum grant amount. On March 20, 2012, Council authorized staff to apply to the California
State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for $117,450 of HRP funds to be applied
B-26
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
STATUS OF OTHER IMPORTANT OBJECTIVES
towards the Santa Rosa Park playground equipment replacement project. On March 28, 2012, staff formally
submitted the grant application to HCD for consideration.
Staff met with numerous developers and reviewed development projects for compliance with the City's
Inclusionary Housing Program. The City received its first development proposal in the Orcutt Area Specific Plan.
The development includes 146 dwelling units with a mix of affordability and housing types. The applicant is
proposing approximately 25% of the units as affordable to very-low, low, and moderate income households. This
level of dedication far exceeds the project's Inclusionary Housing requirement. The Village at Broad affordable
housing project developed by ROEM Corporation on 2201 Emily Street is now complete and occupied. This
project includes 42 rental apartment units 100% affordable extremely-low, very-low, and low income households
earning 30% to 60% of the area median income within the County.
Staff completed a draft version of the South Broad Street Corridor Plan (SBSCP) that has been updated to reflect
development intensity called for by the proposed form-based codes. An Environmental Impact Report is required
to be completed to address potentially significant traffic impacts which will be completed as a part of the Land
Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) update process. On February 15, 2012, the plan was reviewed by the
Airport Land Use Commission for consistency with the density provisions established in the Airport Land Use
Plan (ALUP). Overall, the Commission was in general support of the Plan and determined that anticipated density
was well below the ALUP's maximum allowable for the area. On February 29, 2012, staff met with the SBSCP
focus group to provide an update on the Plan and review process. Overall, focus group comments were very
positive regarding changes that have been made to ensure the Plan is more usable and understandable. Staff
anticipates bringing the Plan to the Planning Commission for review and endorsement in fall 2012, with Council
consideration in late fall 2012. Formal adoption of the Plan will occur after Council approval of the LUCE
update.
On October 4, 2011, Council approved an Affordable Housing Fund award for the Housing Trust Fund in the
amount of $30,000. This award improves the City's ability to facilitate affordable housing and provides technical
assistance to City staff and developers of affordable housing in the City. The award leverages significant
additional funding from other sources.
The 1550 Madonna Road property (HUD 120-unit affordable housing project) has been offered for sale. This
property is currently owned by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. The property is
approximately seven acres in size and includes 120 residential apartment units. The project was constructed in
1971 and has been deed-restricted as affordable housing under a HUD 236 loan since occupancy. This loan came
to maturity on March 2, 2012, and the property owners have decided to sell the property. Vitus Group, Inc., an
affordable housing developer, has entered into a purchase agreement with the owners. Vitus Group's financing
strategy includes the issuance of tax-exempt bonds to assist with property acquisition and rehabilitation. On
March 13, 2012, Council authorized the California Municipal Finance Authority, on behalf of Vitus Group, to
issue up to $15,000,000 in tax exempt bonds to finance the project. This is a positive outcome since there were
several market rate developers that bid on the property. Vitus Group plans to maintain the 120 units as affordable
to low and very-low income households earning 50-60% of area median income within the County. Vitus Group
is currently working on planning and building documents to submit to the City for review and approval.
Staff completed a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental review for the disposition of 172
public housing units owned by HASLO. Historically, HASLO has been able to meet the operating and capital
needs of public housing through a combination of tenant rental income, HUD operating subsidies and capital fund
grants. However, in recent years, funding from all three sources has declined significantly. In order to properly
maintain and operate the public housing units, HASLO is proposing to dispose of the units to an affiliated non-
profit through the means of a long-term lease. This would allow for additional funding from a more stable source
thanHUD.
B-27
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
STATUS OF OTHER IMPORTANT OBJECTIVES
Staff continued efforts to implement an Affordable Housing Monitoring Program. Staff developed compliance
questionnaires and met with the City Attorney prior to mailing to all owners, renters and property managers of
Inclusionary Housing units. These questionnaires were mailed out on March 16, 2012, and staff is currently
reviewing responses for compliance with the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and Affordable Housing
Standards. Staff met with the City Attorney on April18, 2012 to review questionnaire results and determine "next
steps" for those units that appear to be out of compliance with program requirements. Staff is also developing an
ongoing formal process to monitor the City's Inclusionary Housing units.
On April 4, 2012, staff completed and submitted a local reviewing agency project evaluation form for ROEM
Development Corporation's 313 South Street Tax Credit Allocation Committee application. This document is
required to be submitted to the State by local agencies with projects requesting low income housing tax credits.
The 313 South Street project includes 42 affordable housing rental units within four three-story buildings. The
units would be available for rent to extremely-low, very-low and low income households earning 30% to 60% of
the area median income within the County. The project has received public assistance commitments from a
variety of sources including CDBG, Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME), City Affordable Housing
Fund, and development review and impact fee waivers. Local support is necessary for the project to be
competitive for tax credits on a State-wide basis.
Homeless Services
Staff has met with Community Action Partnership of San Luis Obispo (CAPSLO) and County staff on a monthly
basis regarding funding opportunities for the proposed Homeless Services Facility on 3451 South Higuera Street.
On February 21, 2012, Council approved $50,000 in CDBG funding from the 2012 Program Year to help fund
pre-development costs for the design and construction of the Facility. This is in addition to the $25,000 CAPSLO
received in CDBG funds from the 2011 Program Year. The City also contributed $2,500 to fill a funding gap to
open the warming station at Prado Day Center during times of inclement weather.
In recent years, RV's and even automobiles have increasingly emerged as a form of shelter for persons who have
not been able to obtain transitional or permanent housing and are seeking to escape the elements. On February 6,
2012, CAPSLO submitted a proposal to the City to establish a safe parking pilot program at the Prado Day Center
to address this growing community issue and advance a key goal to provide a form of transitional housing
consistent with the 10-Year Plan. On March 20, 2012, Council adopted a resolution to temporarily suspend the
enforcement of Municipal Code Chapter 17.16.015 (Recreational vehicle as dwelling unit) for six months for the
Prado Day Center parking lot and authorized the City Manager to enter into an agreement with CAPSLO to
implement a safe parking pilot program for up to five vehicles, subject to conditions. Staff is working with
CAPSLO on operational and budget details to implement the program consistent with Council's approval.
B-28
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
STATUS OF "ADDRESS AS RESOURCES PERMIT" OBJECTIVES
The following provides brief status reports on
"Address as Resources Permit" objectives for 2011-
13.
Climate Protection
Objective. hnplement greenhouse gas reduction
and Climate Action Plan. Conduct energy audits of
all City facilities, increase energy conservation,
invest in infrastructure which will save energy and
funds in the future.
Status Summary: 75% Complete.
The Utilities Department is working on an energy
efficiency project at the Water Reclamation Facility
(WRF) that partners with Pacific Gas and Electric
(PG&E) to reduce energy consumption, operating
costs and greenhouse emissions. In January 2012,
Council approved agreements with PG&E to
complete a study and a portion of the design for
energy efficiency measures at the WRF. Staff will
return to Council in late fall 2012 with a
recommendation for this project based on the
completed study and preliminary design.
In addition, the Community Development
Department has released the public review draft of
the Climate Action Plan and has conducted outreach
in the form of workshops, Farmers Market
attendance, stakeholder presentations and resident
outreach at grocery stores. The Planning
Commission directed staff to edit and re-organize
the draft plan prior to returning to the Commission
for approval. The revised draft was released the
second week in April, was considered by the
Planning Commission in May and will be reviewed
by Council in July.
Parks and Recreation
Objective. Increase utilization of Damon-Garcia
Sports Fields.
Status Summary: 75% Complete.
To address this Council objective staff first
established a project team in spring 2011. The
project team consists of staff from Parks and
Recreation and Public Works departments, members
B-29
of the Parks and Recreation Commission, and
representatives from both Youth and
Adult Turf Sports. The project team has met
monthly since May of 2011.
The project team's first step was to create a project
plan with four main objectives: determine current
field usage (including maintenance); determine ways
to increase play; identify short term strategies; and
identify longer
term strategies. Based on permit records, the use of
the Damon Garcia Sports Fields during calendar
year 2010 was analyzed. For the calendar year
2010, staff found that 1,395 hours of play by youth
was scheduled, 419.5 hours by adults, 5,483 hours
were needed for maintenance (including closures for
restoration), and 31 days of play were rained out.
47,388 people were estimated to have been on the
fields as spectators or participants.
Following the analysis of field usage, the project
team determined that a stand of Bermuda grass
should be planted on a portion of a field to determine
definitively if it could (a) grow successfully in our
cooler climate and (b) determine if it was more
durable and therefore would result in less restoration
time for the facilities longer term. The grass was
planted during this summer's renovation and a final
determination of its success and failure will occur in
spring 2012. Also following the analysis of field
usage, additional hours of play have been scheduled
for 2011-12. Ultimate Frisbee (for adults) has been
added as has Lacrosse (for adults). Organized drop-
in play was tested in the fall of 2011, occurring on
Tuesdays from 12-2 p.m. With positive feedback
from participants and staff, Thursday 12-2 p.m.
drop-in play was also added to the schedule.
Approximately 30 players are participating in this
opportunity. Beginning in November 2011, a
Thursday night practice for club soccer teams was
added as another test for expanded play. These
additional hours of play were based on a survey of
over 125 users and non-users of the facility who
staff sought information from about their use to
better maximize facility usage.
To increase awareness of field uses and to better
serve the public, a Google calendar has been created
for the fields so that users can have ready access to
the scheduled play at the facility. Staff continues to:
monitor field conditions; survey (every other month)
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
STATUS OF "ADDRESS AS RESOURCES PERMIT" OBJECTIVES
users about field conditions; and expand use of other
facilities in the community for turf sports. As a
result of
the additional uses described above for 20 11-I2,
permitted uses and additional drop-in and practice
uses will result in an increase at a minimum of 298
hours of permitted play (50 hours for youth and 248
hours for adults). This totals a 16% increase from the
prior year's previously scheduled play.
In mid-May 2012, the Damon Garcia Sports Fields
was closed for its annual renovation. Prior to that
closure, a final survey of field conditions was taken
by users to assist in the ongoing maintenance of the
facility. During the renovation period, the project
team will work on developing longer term aspects of
the project plan focused on increased play in 2012-
13 (from the already 16% increase) as well as
identifying alternatives for increased turf play in the
City. As always, the ideal balance between
maintenance and use at Damon Garcia Sports Fields
will be sought.
Historic Preservation
Objective. Continue to promote historic resource
preservation opportunities and update Historic
Resource Inventory.
Status Summary: 50% Complete.
The Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) has been
conducting historic survey work of a IO-block area
adjacent to the Old Town and Railroad Historic
Districts. This survey is the first of several that will
bring the Citywide historic resources inventory up to
date. The CHC sent letters to property owners and
received input at several meetings regarding the
process and how to proceed with the survey.
The CHC organized a subcommittee consisting of
CHC members and Community Development staff
to assist with the survey work. Detailed workbooks
with State Historic Survey forms, guidelines,
architectural details and training materials were
provided to the sub-committee members to assist
with the work effort. The CHC hearings in October
through December 20 II were utilized to review
survey results and identify potential historic
resources Seventy (70) properties within the survey
B-30
area are currently being examined for potential
listing. The CHC will forward the final survey
results
along with recommendations for historic listings to
the City Council in summer 2012.
In December 2011, the City Council adopted a
resolution to allow the City to move forward with an
application to become a Certified Local Government
(CLG). The CLG program facilitates a partnership
between the City and the State Office of Historic
Preservation (OHP), allowing for technical
assistance, grant funding, and collaboration. The
application was accepted by OHP and is pending
submittal to the National Park Service. This will
enable the City to apply for grant funding during the
2012 grant cycle which begins in April 20I2. Grants
can be utilized to assist with historic resource
surveys, training, technical assistance, document
preparation and other activities associated with the
City's Historic Preservation Program. The City's
application to become a Certified Local Government
was approved in March 20 I2 and staff brought a
grant proposal for Council consideration in April. If
the grant application is successful, work will begin
in October to develop a historic context for the City
including a mid-century theme.
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
STATUS OF CARRYOVER OBJECTIVES
The following summarizes the status of "carryover"
Other Important Council Objectives from the 2009-
11 and 2007-09 Financial Plans. In several cases,
"carryover tasks" have been incorporated into the
Major City Goals (or "Other Important Council
Objectives") for 2011-13, and as such, they are not
repeated in this section.
OTHER IMWORTANT COUNCIL
OBJECTIVES
Creek and Flood Protection
Objective. Advance Mid-Higuera flood protection
improvements by seeking Zone 9 funding to
complete design, obtain approvals and make
progress toward construction as resources will allow.
Status Summary: 25% Complete. As
recommended by the Zone 9 committee, the Board
of Supervisors approved additional funding for
preliminary design work to accompany the already
completed technical studies necessary for the
environmental document. The preliminary design
work for the Mid-Higuera bypass flood control
project, sponsored by Zone 9, is underway. A
contract has been awarded to a consultant to prepare
preliminary design documents with anticipated
completion in September 2012. Staff will continue
to move this project forward as resources permit.
Skatepark
Objective. Develop plans and specifications and
seek funding to construct a skate park.
Status Summary: 75% Complete. The skate park
has received all of its discretionary approvals by
City advisory bodies. The project is now in the final
stages and 75% construction ready plans are
presently under review by City staff.
In September 2011, staff submitted grant
applications for Proposition 84 funding (2008
Statewide Park Development and Community
Revitalization Program) in the amount of $1.27
million and to the Stewardship
B-31
Council Infrastructure Fund for $200,000.
Additionally, staff continue efforts to raise funds for
the project through a variety of fundraisers including
the ongoing "Buy a Brick Build a Dream" campaign
for the park and the Deck it Out Art Project.
Airport Area Annexation
Objective. Annex the Airport Area.
Status Summary: 100% Complete for Phase lA.
The Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO) completed the annexation process for 626
acres associated with Phase lA of the annexation
area. The map and certificate of annexation was
delivered to the State Board of Equalization and the
land was officially added to the City boundary on
July 25, 2008.
Discussion with property owners in the Phase lB
area was conducted in early 2009. The proposed
development of the Chevron property will result in
an amendment to the Airport Area Specific Plan
(AASP). That project is in the Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) preparation stage and City and
County staff are collaborating in the review of the
project. The administrative draft of the EIR, along
with the scope of work for a financing plan, is
underway. Annexation of the Chevron property will
provide another key piece of the Airport Area
annexation. Discussions with LAFCO staff have
indicated that LAFCO would prefer the City pursue
annexation of the entire remaining area including the
San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, but
would support phased annexations as needed. This
issue is significant because several areas of the
AASP are not contiguous to existing City boundaries
and the only way to bring those properties into the
City will be to address the airport property itself.
Including the airport may significantly alter the
timing anticipated for Phase lB.
Broad Street Corridor Plan
Objective. Adopt and implement a plan for South
Broad Street corridor planning and improvements.
Status Summary: 80% Complete. The plan has
been significantly revised after further evaluation
revealed
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
STATUS OF CARRYOVER OBJECTIVES
that overall densities associated with reducing
development to address traffic impacts, would result
in
less development than currently allowed. Utilities
staff worked with Wallace Group to evaluate waste
collection system capacity to ensure orderly
development could occur. Staff revised the draft
plan to achieve the project goal of mixed use and
infill development. An Airport Land Use
Commission sub-committee reviewed the draft plan
with the project planner to assist with Airport
density compliance determination. The infill
densities envisioned appear to trigger significant
traffic impacts at various intersections. Evaluation of
project impacts will occur with the Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the General Plan
update. Staff anticipates distributing the revised draft
in fall 2012 for conceptual review by the public and
the Planning Commission.
B-32
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
STATUS OF MAJOR CIP PROJECTS
status o~ majoR c1p puojects
2011-12: Fourth Quarter
As of June 30, 2012
• S!O<-;n Replaooment' (2011-12)
Street Reconstruction & Resurfacing (2011-12)
Bob Jones Bridge Construction -Prado
Andrews Creek Bypass at Conejo
Downtown Sidewalk & Lighting Replacement
City Hall Step Replacement
Marsh Street Garage Painting
Warden Bridge Repair-Mission Plaza
Tank Farm Widening -Broad
Stormdrain Replacements (2012-13)
Street Reconstruction & Resurfacing (2012-13)
Santa Rosa Skate Park
Railroad Safety Trail Construction -Hathway to
~ Taft
I~
Playground Equipment Replacement-Johnson,
Santa Rosa, Emerson Parks
Laguna Lift Station Replacement
Gateway Monument -Santa Rosa & Highland
Downtown Directional Signs Installation
Calle Joaquin Lift Station & Forcemain
Replacement
Bob Jones Bridge Construction -LOVR
Water Reuse Automation Improvements
Percent Complete
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 00% 60% 70% SO"A. 90% 100%
Water Reclamation Facility Energy Efficiency ~~!~!~l-l-l_l_l_l_l_J Projects +
B-33
Section C
BUDGET GRAPHICS
, BUDGET GRAPHICS AND SUMMARIES
OVERVIEW
This section provides simple charts and tables which
highlight key financial relationships and summarize
the overall budget document. Graphics
summarizing the following areas are included:
• Total Operating Program, Capital Improvement
Plan and Debt Service Expenditures
• Total Funding Sources
• Operating Program Expenditures by Function
• Operating Program Expenditures by Type
• Capital Improvement Plan Expenditures by
Function
• Capital Improvement Plan Expenditures by
Funding Source
• Debt Service Expenditures by Function
C-1
• Total Expenditures by Fund
• General Fund Expenditures and Uses
• General Fund Operating Program Expenditures
by Function
• General Fund Operating Program Expenditures
by Type
• General Fund Revenues and Sources
• Summary of Revenues, Expenditures and
Changes in Financial Position by Fund for 20 11-
12 and 2012-13
• Authorized Regular Positions by Function
BUDGET GRAPHICS AND SUMMARIES
TOTAL EXPENDITURES BY TYPE -ALL FUNDS COMBINED
2012-13 Expenditures By Type: $96.1 Million
o Debt Service
• Capital 1 O%
Operating Programs
Capital Improvement Plan
Debt Service
TOTAL
Improvement
Plan
6%
Actual Actual
2009-10 2010-11
68,645,400 72,742,700
22,649,700 16,688,500
9,999,900 10,110,700
llD Operating
Programs
84%
2011-13 Financial Plan
2011-12 2012-13
82,495,900 80,906,400
39,400,900 5,853,900
9,821,800 9,345,700
$101,295,000 $99,541,900 $131,718,600 $96,106,000
C-2
BUDGET GRAPHICS AND SUMMARIES
TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES -ALL FUNDS COMBINED
2012-13 Funding Sources: $96.1 Million
o From Other o Other Sources
Governments -3%
o Other Service S%
Charges
7%
II Enterprise Fund
Service Charges
39%
Taxes & Franchise Fees
Service Charges
Governmental Funds
Enterprise & Agency Funds
From Other Governments
Use of Money & Property
Other Revenues
Total Current Sources
Proceeds from Debt Financings
Fund Balance/Other Sources (Uses)
Actual
2009-10
42,093,000
5,882,600
31,751,400
8,277,700
2,698,800
1,286,900
91,990,400
9,304,600
Actual
2010-11
43,698,500
9,209,300
31,404,200
8,444,800
1,547,300
2,129,200
96,433,300
1,080,000
2,028,600
fl!l Taxes & Franchise
Fees
46%
2011-13 Financial Plan
2011-12 2012-13
45,695,300 46,972,800
8,413,500 7,016,900
34,801,500 39,328,900
15,660,300 5,349,600
1,253,700 1,273,200
1,372,000 1,873,700
107,196,300 101,815,100
24,522,300 (5,709,100)
TOTAL $101,295,000 $99,541,900 $131,718,600 $96,106,000
C-3
BUDGET GRAPHICS AND SUMMARIES
OPERATING PROGRAM EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTION
2012-13 Operating Budget: $80.9 Million
o General
Public Safety
Public Utilities
Transportation
o Community
Development
9%
o Leisure, Cultural &
Social Services
9%
Leisure, Cultural & Social Services
Community Development
General Government
o Transportation
10%
Actual
2009-10
24,203,800
12,378,900
7,069,800
6,785,200
6,690,200
11,517,500
ll!ll Public Safety
31%
• Public Utilities
25%
Actual 2011-13 Financial Plan
2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
23,506,100 25,240,700 24,849,000
17,040,200 20,828,300 20,610,400
7,079,100 7,954,500 8,126,700
6,785,200 7,095,000 7,199,200
7,053,500 8,724,200 7,458,900
11,178,100 12,653,200 12,662,200
TOTAL $68,645,400 $72,642,200 $82,495,900 $80,906,400
C-4
BUDGET GRAPHICS AND SUMMARIES
OPERATING PROGRAM EXPENDITURES BY TYPE
2012-13 Operating Budget: $80.9 Million
o Other Operating
Expenditures
15%
• Contract Services
23%
Staffmg
Contract Services
Other Operating Expenditures
Minor Capital
Actual
2009-10
48,315,900
10,500,300
9,648,300
180,900
Actual
2010-11
47,466,500
15,676,900
9,303,700
195,100
ll!!l Staffing
62%
2011-13 Financial Plan
2011-12 2012-13
50,328,600 50,584,600
20,712,200 18,478,200
11,323,900 11,813,200
131,200 30,400
TOTAL $68,645,400 $72,642,200 $82,495,900 $80,906,400
C-5
BUDGET GRAPHICS AND SUMMARIES
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTION
2012-13 Capital Improvement Plan: $5.9 Million
o Community
Development
0%
o Leisure, Cultural &
Social Services
13%
• Public Utilities
20%
o Public Safety
8%
lll1 Transportation
56%
Actual Actual 2011-13 Financial Plan
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
Public Safety 4,704,400 494,100 616,700 465,800
Public Utilities 4,421,500 4,413,800 10,912,400 1,170,000
Transportation 5,323,900 8,547,900 21,754,200 3,253,300
Leisure, Cultural & Social Services 1,229,400 617,200 2,348,600 765,800
Community Development 3,893,700 884,100 2,904,900 22,500
General Government 3,076,800 1,731,400 864,100 176,500
TOTAL $22,649,700 $16,688,500 $39,400,900 $5,853,900
C-6
BUDGET GRAPHICS AND SUMMARIES
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN EXPENDITURES BY FUNDING SOURCE
2012-13 Capital Improvement Plan: $5.9 Million
o Enterprise Funds
23%
11 Other
Governmental
Funds
9%
ml General Fund
68%
Actual
2009-10
Actual
2010-11
2011-13 Financial Plan
2011-12 2012-13
Governmental Funds
Current Sources
General Fund 3,882,000 2,136,900 4,198,900 3,973,400
Other Governmental Funds 11,781,100 7,426,400 20,370,000 515,500
Debt Financing 1,044,000
Total Governmental funds 15,663,100 10,607,300 24,568,900 4,488,900
Enterprise & Agency Funds
Current Sources 5,549,100 6,081,200 14,832,000 1,365,000
Debt Financing
Total Enterprise & Agency Funds 5,549,100 6,081,200 14,832,000 1,365,000
TOTAL $21,212,200 $16,688,500 $39,400,900 $5,853,900
C-7
BUDGET GRAPHICS AND SUMMARIES
DEBT SERVICE EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTION
2012-13 Debt Service: $9.3 Million
o General
Government
6%
o Leisure, Cultural
& Social Servi
7%
• Transportation
20%
o Public Safety
11%
lEI Public Utilities
56%
Actual Actual 2011-13 Financial Plan
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
Public Safety 948,500 1,065,900 1,022,500 1,003,100
Public Utilities 5,569,200 5,685,800 5,588,800 5,182,600
Transportation 1,885,200 1,826,300 1,890,300 1,886,500
Leisure, Cultural & Social Services 962,500 968,800 716,600 674,500
General Government 634,500 563,900 603,600 599,000
TOTAL $9,999,900 $10,110,700 $9,821,800 $9,345,700
C-8
BUDGET GRAPHICS AND SUMMARIES
TOTAL EXPENDITURES BY FUND
2012-13 Expenditures By Fund: $96.1 Million
o Enterprise &
Agency Funds
39%
Governmental Funds
General Fund
Other Funds
Total Governmental Funds
Enterprise & Agency Funds
Water Fund
Sewer Fund
Parking Fund
Transit Fund
Golf Fund
• Other Funds
4%
Whale Rock Reservoir Fund
Total Enterprise Funds
TOTAL
Actual
2009-10
53,338,900
14,117,500
67,456,400
12,599,200
12,034,400
3,764,600
3,782,900
714,500
943,000
33,838,600
$101,295,000
C-9
ll!!l General Fund
57%
Actual
2010-11
2011-13 Financial Plan
2011-12 2012-13
50,246,800 56,660,500 54,799,500
9,842,100 23,764,700 4,031,900
60,088,900 80,425,200 58,831,400
16,959,700 20,134,900 16,968,600
12,527,400 18,459,400 11,902,200
4,337,300 6,181,400 4,232,400
3,904,100 5,017,800 3,272,600
720,900
802,700 1,499,900 898,800
39,252,100 51,293,400 37,274,600
$99,341,000 $131,718,600 $96,106,000
BUDGET GRAPHICS AND SUMMARIES
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES AND USES
2012-13 General Fund Expenditures and Uses: $54.8 Million
Operating Programs
• Capital
Improvement
Plan
7%
Capital Improvement Plan
Debt Service
Other Uses (Sources)
Operating Subsides to Other Funds:
Golf Fund
Community Development Block Grant Fund
Transportation Impact Fee Fund
MOA & Other Compensation Adjustments
Expenditure Savings
TOTAL
o Debt Service
5%
Actual
2009-10
46,150,900
3,882,000
2,908,700
301,500
21,800
74,000
$53,338,900
C-10
Actual
2010-11
44,713,900
2,136,900
3,023,200
333,300
39,500
$50,246,800
lllil Operating
Programs
88%
2011-13 Financial Plan
2011-12 2012-13
51,566,000 50,269,500
4,198,900 3,973,400
2,705,200 2,637,500
77,300 45,000
100,000 (540,900)
( 1 ,986,900) (1,585,000)
$56,660,500 $54,799,500
BUDGET GRAPHICS AND SUMMARIES
GENERAL FUND OPERATING PROGRAM EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTION
2012-13 General Fund Operating: $50.3 Million
o General
Government
24%
o Community
Development
11%
o Leisure, Cultural
& Social Services
13%
11 Public Safety
46%
o Transportation
6%
Actual Actual 2011-13 Financial Plan
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
Public Safety 24,203,800 23,506,100 25,240,700 24,849,000
Transportation 3,019,700 2,901,900 3,212,900 3,267,800
Leisure, Cultural & Social Services 6,279,900 6,268,700 7,095,000 7,199,200
Community Development 5,394,000 5,309,000 7,139,100 6,023,400
General Government 11,517,500 11,178,100 12,653,200 12,662,200
Reimbursed Expenditures ( 4,264,000) {4,449,900) (3 '77 4,900) {3,732,100)
TOTAL $46,150,900 $44,713,900 $51,566,000 $50,269,500
C-11
BUDGET GRAPHICS AND SUMMARIES
GENERAL FUND OPERATING PROGRAM EXPENDITURES BY TYPE
2012-13 General Fund Operating: $50.3 Million
o Other Operating
Expenditures
14%
• Contract Services
9%
Staffing
Contract Services
Other Operating Expenditures
Minor Capital
Reimbursed Expenditures
TOTAL
Actual Actual
2009-10 2010-11
40,247,500 39,169,700
3,812,400 3,728,100
6,316,700 6,255,200
38,300 10,800
(4,264,000) (4,449,900)
l!il Staffing
77%
2011-13 Financial Plan
2011-12 2012-13
41,952,100 41,803,400
6,084,200 4,690,300
7,275,900 7,479,200
28,700 28,700
(3,774,900) (3,732,1 00)
$46,150,900 $44,713,900 $51,566,000 $50,269,500
C-12
BUDGET GRAPHICS AND SUMMARIES
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
2012-13 General Fund Revenues: $53.7 Million
o All Other Revenues
o Service Charges 2%
Taxes
Sales & Use Taxes
General Sales Tax
10%
o Other Taxes
9%
l!lil VLF Swap
7%
l!lil Utility Users
9%
Measure Y Sales Tax
Public Safety (Proposition 172) Sales Tax
Property Tax
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
Utility Users Tax
Property Tax in lieu ofVLF
Other Taxes
Total Taxes
Fines & Forfeitures
Use of Money & Property
From Other Governments
Service Charges
Other Revenues
TOTAL
10%
Actual
2009-10
10,723,900
5,252,500
257,900
8,579,300
4,496,100
4,862,400
3,565,100
4,355,800
42,093,000
201,700
904,800
1,235,000
4,691,600
139,600
$49,265,700
C-13
• General Sales Tax
25%
• Measure Y Sales
Tax
l!lil Property Tax
16%
Actual
2010-11
12,098,600
5,616,300
271,300
8,441,100
4,844,200
4,592,300
3,551,100
4,283,600
43,698,500
171,400
549,900
796,000
4,987,100
179,300
$50,382,200
12%
2011-13 Financial Plan
2011-12 2012-13
12,945,500 13,528,000
6,009,400 6,279,800
272,300 284,600
8,370,200 8,370,200
5,134,800 5,395,000
4,898,900 4,938,100
3,551,000 3,551,000
4,513,200 4,626,100
45,695,300 46,972,800
155,100 162,600
475,500 695,500
1,413,600 321,500
5,614,900 5,448,900
79,200 75,000
$53,433,600 $53,676,300
BUDGET GRAPHICS AND SUMMARIES
AUTHORIZED REGULAR STAFFING BY FUNCTION
2012-13 Authorized Positions: 355.4
o General
o Community
Development
12%
o Leisure, Cultural &
Social Services
9%
o Transportation
9%
llill Public Safety
38%
• Public Utilities
17%
Actual Actual 20 11-13 Financial Plan
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
Public Safety 140.3 139.5 135.3 133.3
Public Utilities 60.8 60.8 60.8 61.8
Transportation 33.0 32.2 32.0 32.0
Leisure, Cultural & Social Services 33.0 33.0 32.0 32.0
Community Development 41.1 41.1 42.9 43.9
General Government 51.0 51.0 50.5 52.3
TOTAL 359.2 357.6 353.5 355.3
C-14
BUDGET GRAPHICS AND SUMMARIES
SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION
2011-12 Changes in Financial Position
Special Revenue Funds
Downtown BID (Note 1) 198,100 199,200 (1,100) 2,300 1,200
Tourism BID (Note 2) 1,028,000 1,122,900 (135,900) 193,000 57,100
Gas Tax 1,215,600
TDA (Note 3) 26,200
CDBG (Note 4) 1,461,500 1,538,800 77,300
Law Enforcement Grants 2,800 26,200 (23,400) 42,000 18,600
Public Art (Private 34,000 234,400 (200,400) 366,700 166,300
Proposition 42 Fund
Proposition lB Fund
Capital Project Funds
Capital Outlay 4,118,200 13,516,800 3,461,400 (5,937,200) 5,937,200
Parkland Development 412,300 1,548,900 (1,136,600) 1,246,700 110,100
Transportation Impact 2,679,000 5,668,500 (2,989,500) 4,221,100 1,231,600
Los Osos Valley Rd 619,300 236,400 360,700 743,600
Open Space Protection 565,700 813,500 237,500 115,100 104,800
Airport Area Impact 16,000 355,600 1,028,400 688,800
Affordable Housing 718,900 744,700 1,010,500 984,700
Fleet Replacement 27,100 148,100 500,000
700
20,134,900 13,100 13,377,400 9,380,400
14,454,500 18,459,400 (157,300) 10,568,800 6,406,600
4,030,500 6,181,400 6,602,200 4,451,300
5,101,300 5,017,800 13,000 998,700 1,095,200
I. Downtown Business Improvement District
2. Tourism Business Improvement District
3. Transportation Development Act
4. Community Development Block Grant
These two charts summarize changes in financial position for 2011-12 and 2012-13 for all of the City's funds. Detailed
statements for each fund are provided in Section G (Changes in Financial Position), which provide additional information on
revenues, expenditures and changes in financial position for the last two completed fiscal years (2009-10 and 2010-11) and
for the two years covered by the Financial Plan (2011-12 and 2012-13). Section G also provides an overview ofthe purpose
and organization of the City's funds.
C-15
BUDGET GRAPHICS AND SUMMARIES
SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION
2012-13 Changes in Financial Position
Downtown BID 200,000 200,000 1,200 1,200
Tourism BID 1,058,000 992,000 (21,100) 44,900 57,100 102,000
Gas Tax 1,233,800 (1,233,800)
TDA 26,200 (26,200)
CDBG 506,600 572,800 66,200
Law Enforcement Grants 2,900 2,900 18,600 21,500
Public Art (Private 26,000 26,000 166,300 192,300
Proposition 42 Fund
Proposition 1B Fund
Project Funds
Capital Outlay 320,000 3,570,900 3,250,900
Parkland Development 29,000 29,000 110,100 139,100
Transportation Impact 595,500 275,000 320,500 1,231,600 1,552,100
Los Osos Valley Road 2,000 2,000 743,600 745,600
Open Space Protection 500 22,500 22,500 500 104,800 105,300
Airport Area Impact 16,500 16,500 688,800 705,300
Affordable Housing 20,000 20,000 984,700 1,004,700
Fleet Replacement 31,800 291,200 700,000 440,600 2,615,800
500 700
16,968,600 142,200 (74,300) 9,380,400 9,306,100
15,492,400 11,902,200 19,100 3,609,300 6,406,600 10,015,900
7,586,700 4,232,400 (2,374,900) 979,400 4,451,300 5,430,700
3,339,900 3,272,600 67,300 1,095,200 1,162,500
20,200 20,200
898,900 898,800 (44,200) (44,100) 559,500 515,400
C-16
Section D
OPERATING PROGRAMS
OPERATING PROGRAMS
OVERVIEW-PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION
PURPOSE
The operating programs set forth in this section of the
Financial Plan form the City's basic organizational
units, provide for the delivery of essential services
and allow the City to accomplish the following:
• Establish policies and goals that define the nature
and level of services to be provided.
• Identify activities performed in delivering
program services.
• Set objectives for improving the delivery of
services.
• Appropriate the resources required to perform
activities and accomplish objectives.
ORGANIZATION
The City's operating expenditures are organized into
the following hierarchical categories:
• Function • Operation • Program • Activity
Function
The highest level of summarization used in the City's
Financial Plan, functions represent a grouping of
related operations and programs that may cross
organizational (departmental) boundaries aimed at
accomplishing a broad goal or delivering a major
service. The six functions in the Financial Plan are:
D-1
• Public Safety
• Public Utilities
• Transportation
• Leisure, Cultural and Social Services
• Community Development
• General Government
Operation
An operation is a grouping of related programs within
a functional area such as Police Protection within
Public Safety or Water Service within Public Utilities.
Program
Programs are the basic organizational units of the
Financial Plan establishing policies, goals and
objectives that defme the nature and level of services
to be provided.
Activity
Activities are the specific services and tasks
performed within a program in the pursuit of its
objectives and goals.
Sample Relationship: Public Utilities
The following is an example of the hierarchical
relationship between functions, operations, programs
and activities:
FUNCTION_Public Utilities
OPERATION ___ Water Service
PROGRAM ______ Water Treatment
ACTIVITY _________ Laboratory Analysis
OPERATING PROGRAMS
OVERVIEW-SUMMARY OF FUNCTIONS AND OPERATIONS
Public Safety
Police Protection
Fire & Environmental Safety
Public Utilities
Water Service
Wastewater Service
Whale Rock Reservoir
Transportation
Transportation Planning & Engineering
Streets
Creek & Flood Protection
Parking
Municipal Transit System
Leisure, Cultural & Social Services
Parks and Recreation
Recreation Programs
Golf Course
Maintenance Programs
Cultural Activities
Social Services: Human Relations
Community Development
Development Review & Long Range Planning
Housing
Construction Regulation
Building & Safety
Engineering
Natural Resources Protection
Economic Health
Economic Development
Community Promotion
Downtown Business Improvement District
Tourism Business Improvement District
General Government
Legislation & Policy
General Administration
City Administration
Public W arks Administration
Legal Services
City Clerk Services
Organizational Support Services
Human Resources Administration
Risk Management
Accounting & Revenue Management
Information Technology
Geographic Information Services
Building & Fleet Maintenance
Responsible Department
Police
Fire
Utilities
Utilities
Utilities
Public W arks
Public W arks
Public W arks
Public W arks
Public W arks
Parks & Recreation
Parks & Recreation
Public W arks
Administration
Human Resources
Community Development
Community Development
Community Development
Public W arks
Administration
Administration
Administration
Administration
Administration
Council & Advisory Bodies
Administration
Public W arks
City Attorney
Administration
Human Resources
Human Resources
Finance & Information Technology
Finance & Information Technology
Finance & Information Technology
Public Works
D-2
Funding Source
General Fund
General Fund
Water Fund
Sewer Fund
Whale Rock Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
Parking Fund
Transit Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
CDBGFund
General Fund
CDBGFund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
DBIDFund
TBIDFund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund
OPERATING PROGRAMS
EXPENDITURE SUMMARIES-OVERVIEW
The Supplement includes the following operating
program expenditure summaries:
Expenditures by Function
• Summarizes operating expenditures at the
function and operation level.
Expenditures by Program
• Summarizes all operating expenditures at the
program level grouped within related functions
and operations.
Expenditures by Department
• Summarizes all operating program expenditures
at the program or operation level grouped by the
Department that is responsible for administering
them.
Expenditures by Type:
All Funds and the General Fund
• Summarizes all operating expenditures by type:
staffmg (salaries and benefits), contract services,
other operating expenditures (materials,
communications, utilities, and insurance) and
minor capital (capital purchases with a per item
cost greater than $5,000 and less than $15,000).
D-3
Significant Operating Program Changes
• Summarizes all significant operating program
changes by function and operation.
OPERATING PROGRAMS
EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTION
PUBLIC SAFETY
Police Protection
Fire & Environmental Safety
Total Public Safety
PUBLIC UTILITIES
Water Service
Wastewater Service
Whale Rock Reservoir
Total Public Utilities
TRANSPORTATION
Transportation Management
Streets
Creek & Flood Protection
Parking
Municipal Transit System
Total Transportation
LEISURE, CULTURAL & SOCIAL SERVICES
Parks & Recreation
Recreation Programs
Maintenance Services
Cultural Services
Social Services
Total Leisure, Cultural & Social Services
Actual
2009-10
14,525,400
9,678,400
24,203,800
5,934,200
5,601,000
843,700
12,378,900
595,800
1,673,100
750,800
1,603,900
2,446,200
7,069,800
3,451,400
2,739,700
362,700
231,400
6,785,200
D-4
Actual 2011-13 Financial Plan
2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
14,019,900 15,191,300 15,066,600
9,486,200 10,049,400 9,782,400
23,506,100 25,240,700 24,849,000
10,686,600 13,664,100 13,264,300
5,652,200 6,373,700 6,543,100
701,400 790,500 803,000
17,040,200 20,828,300 20,610,400
511,600 604,600 615,900
1,632,900 1,798,100 1,839,200
757,400 810,200 812,700
1,640,900 1,983,000 2,003,200
2,536,300 2,758,600 2,855,700
7,079,100 7,954,500 8,126,700
3,380,400 3,512,000 3,517,400
2,811,100 3,067,300 3,160,100
360,600 278,000 284,000
233,100 237,700 237,700
6,785,200 7,095,000 7,199,200
OPERATING PROGRAMS
EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTION
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Planning
Construction Regulation
Building & Safety
Engineering
Natural Resources Protection
Economic Health
Economic Development
Community Promotion
Downtown Business Improvement District
Tourism Business Improvement District
Total Community Development
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Legislation & Policy
General Administration
City Administration
City Clerk Services
Public Works Administration
Legal Services
Organizational Support Services
Human Resources Programs
Finance & Information Technology Programs
GeoData Services
Buildings & Equipment
Building Operations & Maintenance
Fleet Maintenance
Total General Government
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES
Actual
2009-10
1,871,500
829,100
1,996,800
365,300
213,400
377,700
208,300
828,100
6,690,200
129,700
790,800
281,100
1,113,100
518,900
3,020,300
3,336,400
389,800
973,200
964,200
11,517,500
$68,645,400
D-5
Actual 2011-13 Financial Plan
2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
1,756,300 3,058,000 1,824,700
910,900 1,138,200 1,160,500
2,000,700 2,124,300 2,185,900
359,200 364,900 351,400
184,100 284,800 296,600
386,300 431,900 447,800
196,800 199,200 200,000
1,359,700 1,122,900 992,000
7,154,000 8,724,200 7,458,900
130,700 138,400 133,400
685,500 747,800 654,700
321,800 385,100 421,500
995,600 997,900 913,500
497,900 637,200 540,000
2,644,100 2,987,800 3,071,400
3,349,200 4,248,500 4,282,900
509,800 453,300 446,900
1,003,300 1,034,300 1,055,600
1,040,200 1,022,900 1,142,300
11,178,100 12,653,200 12,662,200
$72,742,700 $82,495,900 $80,906,400
OPERATING PROGRAMS
EXPENDITURES BY PROGRAM -PUBLIC SAFETY
POLICE PROTECTION
Administration
Neighborhood & Crime Prevention Services
Support Services
Investigative Services
Traffic Safety
Patrol Services
Total Police Protection
FIRE & ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY
Administration
Emergency Response
Hazard Prevention
Training
Technical Services
Disaster Preparedness
Total Fire & Environmental Safety
TOTAL PUBLIC SAFETY
Actual
2009-10
1,449,400
238,100
2,152,600
2,637,700
950,300
7,097,300
14,525,400
687,200
7,895,800
736,900
318,900
28,800
10,800
9,678,400
$24,203,800
D-6
Actual
2010-11
1,377,500
232,400
2,172,400
2,622,600
891,300
6,723,700
14,019,900
561,800
7,912,700
636,700
307,600
57,100
10,300
9,486,200
$23,506,100
2011-13 Financial Plan
2011-12 2012-13
1,754,900 1,738,700
254,300 256,600
2,353,900 2,341,000
2,535,700 2,494,300
966,000 958,200
7,326,500 7,277,800
15,191,300 15,066,600
582,400 772,300
8,426,200 8,247,800
648,500 630,400
353,000 102,400
19,400 19,800
19,900 9,700
10,049,400 9,782,400
$25,240,700 $24,849,000
OPERATING PROGRAMS
EXPENDITURES BY PROGRAM -PUBLIC UTILITIES
WATER SERVICE
Water Source of Supply
Water Treatment
Water Distribution
Water Customer Service
Utilities Conservation Office
Water Taxes & Fees
Water Administration & Engineering
Total Water Service
WASTEWATER SERVICE
Wastewater Collection
Wastewater Pretreatment
Water Reclamation Facility
Water Quality Lab
Wastewater Taxes & Fees
Wastewater Administration & Engineering
Total Wastewater Service
WHALE ROCK RESERVOIR
Reservoir Operations
TOTAL PUBLIC UTILITIES
Actual
2009-10
1,392,800
1,871,500
1,032,000
235,600
379,000
470,700
552,600
5,934,200
1,087,000
205,200
2,924,700
400,300
412,100
571,700
5,601,000
843,700
$12,378,900
D-7
Actual 2011-13 Financial Plan
2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
6,038,000 8,346,300 7,940,000
1,930,400 2,274,600 2,317,900
1,055,900 1,143,500 1,168,200
240,800 321,300 331,100
362,100 413,000 382,300
481,500 519,600 562,000
577,900 645,800 562,800
10,686,600 13,664,100 13,264,300
1,184,100 1,122,400 1,086,600
202,300 231,800 234,300
2,770,100 3,287,800 3,302,000
437,900 484,100 474,300
463,000 489,700 522,800
594,800 757,900 923,100
5,652,200 6,373,700 6,543,100
701,400 790,500 803,000
$17,040,200 $20,828,300 $20,610,400
OPERATING PROGRAMS
EXPENDITURES BY PROGRAM -TRANSPORTATION
TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT
Transportation Planning & Engineering
STREETS
Street & Sidewalk Maintenance
Traffic Signals & Street Lights
Total Streets
CREEK AND FLOOD PROTECTION
Operations & Maintenance
PARKING
Operations, Maintenance & Enforcement
MUNICIPAL TRANSIT SYSTEM
Operations & Maintenance
TOTAL TRANSPORTATION
Actual
2009-10
595,800
1,164,000
509,100
1,673,100
750,800
1,603,900
2,446,200
$7,069,800
D-8
Actual 2011-13 Financial Plan
2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
511,600 604,600 615,900
1,178,600 1,310,800 1,314,400
454,300 487,300 524,800
1,632,900 1,798,100 1,839,200
757,400 810,200 812,700
1,640,900 1,983,000 2,003,200
2,536,300 2,758,600 2,855,700
$7,079,100 $7,954,500 $8,126,700
OPERATING PROGRAMS
EXPENDITURES BY PROGRAM-LEISURE, CULTURAL & SOCIAL SERVICES
PARKS & RECREATION
Recreation Programs
Recreation Administration
Aquatics/Sinsheimer Park Facilities
Youth Services
Facilities
Community Services
Recreational Sports
Teens, Seniors & Classes
Ranger Services
Golf Course Operation & Maintenance
Total Recreation Programs
Maintenance Services
Parks & Landscape Maintenance
Swim Center Maintenance
Tree Maintenance
Total Maintenance Services
Total Parks & Recreation
CULTURAL SERVICES
Cultural Activities
SOCIAL SERVICES
Human Relations
TOTAL LEISURE, CULTURAL &
SOCIAL SERVICES
Actual
2009-10
688,100
346,300
718,800
220,200
163,900
338,600
257,800
212,400
505,300
3,451,400
1,930,000
345,400
464,300
2,739,700
6,191,100
362,700
231,400
$6,7852200
D-9
Actual
2010-11
671,400
341,200
857,500
209,800
263,100
298,800
0
222,100
516,500
3,380,400
1,939,500
404,600
467,000
2,811,100
6,191,500
360,600
233,100
$6,785,200
2011-13 Financial Plan
2011-12 2012-13
747,200 725,700
337,600 334,700
884,400 902,300
221,700 218,800
255,600 256,900
289,800 285,500
0 0
233,900 238,700
541,800 554,800
3,512,000 3,517,400
2,243,800 2,315,400
422,900 436,800
400,600 407,900
3,067,300 3,160,100
6,579,300 6,677,500
278,000 284,000
237,700 237,700
$7,095,000 $7,199,200
OPERATING PROGRAMS
EXPENDITURES BY PROGRAM -COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING
Commissions & Committees
Community Development Administration
Development Review
Long Range Planning
Housing
Total Planning
CONSTRUCTION REGULATION
Building & Safety
CIP Project Engineering
Engineering Development Review
Total Construction Regulation
NATURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION
Natural Resources Protection
ECONOMIC HEALTH
Economic Development
Community Promotion
Downtown Business Improvement District
Tourism Business Improvement District
Total Economic Development
TOTAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Actual Actual
2009-10 2010-11
21,000 17,900
439,800 471,100
584,800 495,800
566,100 483,000
259,800 288,500
1,871,500 1,756,300
829,100 910,900
1,555,500 1,583,600
441,300 417,100
2,825,900 2,911,600
365,300 359,200
213,400 184,100
377,700 386,300
208,300 196,800
828,100 1,359,700
1,627,500 2,126,900
$6,690,200 $7,154,000
D-10
2011-13 Financial Plan
2011-12 2012-13
33,900 33,900
497,700 499,100
530,800 527,500
1,732,600 520,700
263,000 243,500
3,058,000 1,824,700
1,138,200 1,160,500
1,723,700 1,780,200
400,600 405,700
3,262,500 3,346,400
364,900 351,400
284,800 296,600
431,900 447,800
199,200 200,000
1,122,900 992,000
915,900 944,400
$7,601,300 $6,466,900
OPERATING PROGRAMS
EXPENDITURES BY PROGRAM -GENERAL GOVERNMENT
LEGISLATION AND POLICY
City Council
GENERAL ADMINISTRATION
City Administration
City Clerk Services
Public Works Administration
Total General Administration
LEGAL SERVICES
City Attorney
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES
Human Resources Administration
Risk Management
Finance & Information Technology Administration
Accounting
Revenue Management
Support Services
Information Technology
Geographic Information Services
Total Organizational Support Services
BUILDINGS & EQUIPMENT
Building Maintenance
Fleet Maintenance
Total Buildings & Equipment
TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Actual
2009-10
129,700
790,800
281,100
1,113,100
2,185,000
518,900
642,900
2,377,400
320,900
559,400
679,800
85,800
1,690,500
389,800
6,746,500
973,200
964,200
1,937,400
$11,517,500
D-11
Actual
2010-11
130,700
685,500
321,800
995,600
2,002,900
497,900
578,800
2,065,300
232,600
540,100
753,500
96,900
1,726,100
509,800
6,503,100
1,003,300
1,040,200
2,043,500
$11,178,100
2011-13 Financial Plan
2011-12
138,400
747,800
385,100
997,900
2,130,800
637,200
607,000
2,380,800
326,400
634,900
819,700
189,100
2,278,400
453,300
7,689,600
1,034,300
1,022,900
2,057,200
$12,653,200
2012-13
133,400
654,700
421,500
913,500
1,989,700
540,000
568,500
2,502,900
315,700
617,500
878,500
208,100
2,263,100
446,900
7,801,200
1,055,600
1,142,300
2,197,900
$12,662,200
OPERATING PROGRAMS
OPERATING EXPENDITURES BY DEPARTMENT
Actual Actual 2011-13 Financial Plan
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
CITY COUNCIL
Legislation & Policy 129,700 130,700 138,400 133,400
Total City Council 129,700 130,700 138,400 133,400
ADMINISTRATION
City Administration 790,800 685,500 747,800 654,700
City Clerk Services 281,100 321,800 385,100 421,500
Cultural Activities 362,700 360,600 278,000 284,000
Natural Resources Protection 365,300 359,200 364,900 351,400
Economic Development 213,400 184,100 284,800 296,600
Community Promotion 377,700 386,300 431,900 447,800
Total Administration 2,391,000 2,297,500 2,492,500 2,456,000
CITY ATTORNEY
Legal Services 518,900 497,900 637,200 540,000
Total City Attorney 518,900 497,900 637,200 540,000
HUMAN RESOURCES
Human Resources Administration 642,900 578,800 607,000 568,500
Risk Management 2,377,400 2,065,300 2,380,800 2,502,900
Human Relations 231,400 233,100 237,700 237,700
Total Human Resources 3,251,700 2,877,200 3,225,500 3,309,100
FINANCE & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Finance & Information Technology Administration 320,900 232,600 326,400 315,700
Accounting 559,400 540,100 634,900 617,500
Revenue Management 679,800 753,500 819,700 878,500
Support Services 85,800 96,900 189,100 208,100
Information Technology 1,690,500 1,726,100 2,278,400 2,263,100
Geographic Information Services 389,800 509,800 453,300 446,900
Total Finance & Information Technology 3,726,200 3,859,000 4,701,800 4,729,800
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Commissions & Committees 21,000 17,900 33,900 33,900
Administration 439,800 471,100 497,700 499,100
Development Review 584,800 495,800 530,800 527,500
Long Range Planning 566,100 483,000 1,732,600 520,700
Housing 259,800 288,500 263,000 243,500
Building & Safety 829,100 910,900 1,138,200 1,160,500
Total Community Development 2,700,600 2,667,200 4,196,200 2,985,200
D-12
OPERATING PROGRAMS
OPERATING EXPENDITURES BY DEPARTMENT
PARKS & RECREATION
Recreation Programs
UTILITIES
Water Services
Wastewater Services
Whale Rock Reservoir
Total Utilities
PUBLIC WORKS
Administration
CIP Project Engineering
Transportation & Development Review
Engineering Development Review
Transportation Planning & Engineering
Parking
Municipal Transit System
Maintenance Services
Street Maintenance
Creek & Flood Protection
Parks & Landscape Maintenance
Swim Center Maintenance
Tree Maintenance
Building Maintenance
Fleet Maintenance
Total Public Works
POLICE
FIRE
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
Tourism Business Improvement District
Downtown Business Improvement District
Total Non-Departmental
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES
Actual
2009-10
3,451,400
5,934,200
5,601,000
843,700
12,378,900
1,113,100
1,555,500
441,300
595,800
1,603,900
2,446,200
1,673,100
750,800
1,930,000
345,400
464,300
973,200
964,200
14,856,800
14,525,400
9,678,400
828,100
208,300
1,036,400
$68,645,400
D-13
Actual
2010-11
3,380,400
10,686,600
5,652,200
701,400
17,040,200
995,600
1,583,600
417,100
511,600
1,640,900
2,536,300
1,632,900
757,400
1,939,500
404,600
467,000
1,003,300
1,040,200
14,930,000
14,019,900
9,486,200
1,359,700
196,800
1,556,500
$72,742,700
2011-13 Financial Plan
2011-12 2012-13
3,512,000 3,517,400
13,664,100 13,264,300
6,373,700 6,543,100
790,500 803,000
20,828,300 20,610,400
997,900 913,500
1,723,700 1,780,200
400,600 405,700
604,600 615,900
1,983,000 2,003,200
2,758,600 2,855,700
1,798,100 1,839,200
810,200 812,700
2,243,800 2,315,400
422,900 436,800
400,600 407,900
1,034,300 1,055,600
1,022,900 1,142,300
16,201,200 16,584,100
15,191,300 15,066,600
10,049,400 9,782,400
1,122,900 992,000
199,200 200,000
1,322,100 1,192,000
$82,495,900 $80,906,400
OPERATING PROGRAMS
OPERATING EXPENDITURES BY TYPE -ALL FUNDS COMBINED
STAFFING
Salaries and Wages
Regular Salaries
Temporary Salaries
Overtime
Benefits
Retirement
Group Health and Other Insurance
Retiree Health Care
Medicare
Unemployment Reimbursements
Total Staffing
CONTRACT SERVICES
OTHER OPERATING EXPENDITURES
Communications & Utilities
Rents & Leases
Insurance
Other Operating Expenditures
Total Other Operating Expenditures
MINOR CAPITAL
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES
Actual
2009-10
28,915,800
2,287,000
2,552,700
9,341,100
4,017,300
649,100
446,800
106,100
48,315,900
10,500,300
3,042,000
136,600
2,248,900
4,220,800
9,648,300
180,900
$68,645,400
D-14
Actual
2010-11
28,831,700
2,226,200
2,341,300
9,349,000
3,789,300
440,700
445,100
43,200
47,466,500
15,676,900
2,986,300
147,400
1,939,500
4,331,000
9,404,200
195,100
$72,742,700
2011-13 Financial Plan
2011-12 2012-13
29,591,900 30,370,200
2,420,200 2,179,400
2,511,700 2,462,700
10,580,100 10,238,500
4,073,600 4,138,900
524,300 558,000
494,500 501,200
132,300 135,700
50,328,600 50,584,600
20,712,200 18,478,200
3,472,400 3,641,500
157,200 155,900
2,197,400 2,332,900
5,496,900 5,682,900
11,323,900 11,813,200
131,200 30,400
$82,495,900 $80,906,400
OPERATING PROGRAMS
OPERATING EXPENDITURES BY TYPE-GENERAL FUND
STAFFING
Salaries and Wages
Regular Salaries
Temporary Salaries
Overtime
Benefits
Retirement
Group Health and Other Insurance
Retiree Health Care
Medicare
Unemployment Reimbursements
Total Staffing
CONTRACT SERVICES
OTHER OPERATING EXPENDITURES
Communications & Utilities
Rents & Leases
Insurance
Other Operating Expenditures
Total Other Operating Expenditures
MINOR CAPITAL
TOTAL PROGRAM EXPENDITURES
Reimbursed Expenditures
TOTAL GENERAL FUND
OPERATING EXPENDITURES
Actual
2009-10
23,861,400
1,911,700
2,397,500
7,915,900
3,191,500
511,600
370,300
87,600
40,247,500
3,812,400
1,538,000
130,500
2,248,900
2,399,300
6,316,700
38,300
50,414,900
(4,264,000)
$46,150,900
D-15
Actual
2010-11
23,519,400
1,836,200
2,162,500
7,899,200
3,002,900
346,900
367,100
35,500
39,169,700
3,728,100
1,629,500
141,800
1,939,500
2,544,400
6,255,200
10,800
49,163,800
(4,449,900)
$44,713,900
2011-13 Financial Plan
2011-12 2012-13
24,555,500 24,916,100
1,945,500 1,793,700
2,304,700 2,260,600
8,944,600 8,565,800
3,254,900 3,299,400
427,000 441,900
410,700 414,200
109,200 111,700
41,952,100 41,803,400
6,084,200 4,690,300
1,914,000 2,021,100
152,200 153,900
2,197,400 2,332,900
3,012,300 2,971,300
7,275,900 7,479,200
28,700 28,700
55,340,900 54,001,600
(3,774,900) (3,732,100)
$51,566,000 $50,269,500
SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGES
INCREASES REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN BASIC SERVICE LEVELS
Public Safety
Fire & Environmental Safety • Personal Protective Equipment
Public Utilities
Utilities Administration • Update Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fee Study
• Water Quality Studies for San Luis Obispo Creek
• Organizational Structure Review
• Utilities Business Manager*
Water Source of Supply • Nacimiento Water Project
Transportation
Signals & Street Lights • Signal Maintenance Technician Salary
Community Development
Planning • Housing Program Funding Gap*
Economic Development • Tourism Manager*
General Government
Administration • City Clerk Office Reorganization
Public Works Administration • Deputy Director Leave Coverage
City Attorney • City Attorney Office Staffing
• Outside Counsel for Code Enforcement
Revenue Management • Upgrade Business Tax & License Software
• City User Fee Study
Fleet Maintenance • Emergency Generator Preventative Maintenance
• Overtime and Callback Pay
TOTAL
* Request does not result in increased operating budget
Summary By Fund
General Fund
Enterprise Funds
Water Fund
Sewer Fund
Parking Fund
Transit Fund
TOTAL
D-16
Page
D-17
D-19
D-22
D-26
D-29
D-34
D-36
D-39
D-43
D-46
D-50
D-56
D-59
D-62
D-65
D-68
D-72
2011-12
25,300
$25,300
25,300
$25,300
2012-13
21,300
15,000
275,000
25,000
(276,400)
40,400
51,600
85,100
11,700
25,000
34,300
36,100
15,600
7,500
$367,200
298,700
(256,400)
295,000
22,400
7,500
$367,200
PUBLIC SAFETY
PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT FOR NEWLY HIRED FIREFIGHTERS
Request Summary
Providing three sets of required Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for newly hired firefighters will cost
$21,300 in 2012-13.
Key Objectives
1. Provide required PPE for all firefighters.
2. Ensure safe and well fitted equipment for each newly hired firefighter
Existing Situation: Factors Driving the Need for Change
Currently, due to retirements and promotions, the Fire Department has four vacancies, and four additional
vacancies are expected by the end of the calendar year 2012. If that occurs, the Department plans on filling five of
these vacancies, and personal protective equipment will need to be purchased for each firefighter. The other three
positions will be backfilled with overtime.
The 2011-13 Financial Plan provides for one set of PPE per fiscal year for a newly hired firefighter at a cost of
$7,071. In 2011-12, no new firefighters were hired so carrying that funding over to 2012-13 will provide $14,142
for two sets of the anticipated five sets that will be needed.
Goal and Policy Links
Preservation of Essential Services and Fiscal Health
Program Work Completed
A list of required equipment and costs has been prepared. Items include: structure firefighting PPE -$3,354;
wildland firefighting PPE -$2,006; emergency medical service PPE-$546; and self-contained breathing
apparatus portable mask with mask mounted regulator-$1,000 and station boots-$165.
Environmental Review
No environmental review required.
Program Constraints and Limitations
The figures are based upon anticipated attrition of Firefighters. If more than five vacancies occur, the requested
amount may not provide sufficient funding.
Stakeholders
Fire Department personnel and the public who benefits from the services provided by the department.
D-17
PUBLIC SAFETY
PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT FOR NEWLY HIRED FIREFIGHTERS
Implementation
Task Date
1. Firefighter recruitment
2. Firefighter testing
3. Firefighter Academy
4. Place Firefighters in service
Key Program Assumptions
Dates tentative
October 2012
December 2012
February 2013
March 2013
There are eight firefighter vacancies anticipated for 2012-13 which will create the need to hire entry level
firefighters, requiring the purchase of five sets of personal protective equipment.
Program Manager and Team Support
Program Manager. Battalion Chief
Project Team. Fire Department Administrative Analyst, Finance Department
Alternatives
1. Write grant for the PPE. Guidelines have not been released for the Assistance to Firefighter Grant. If the PPE
is an eligible expense, the Fire Department will prepare and submit a grant for the PPE needed.
2. Do not hire new firefighters and fill the additional vacancies with overtime. Operations are negatively
affected when more than three vacancies exist due to the excessive overtime that is required to fill the
constant staffing of 13 Emergency Response staff required on each shift.
Operating Program
Fire Department Emergency Response Budget (85200)
Cost Summary
D-18
PUBLIC UTILITIES
UPDATE WATER AND WASTEWATER DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
Request Summary
Using consultant services to complete an update of the Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fee Study
will cost $15,000 in 2012-13.
Key Objectives
Ensure future development pays its proportionate share of water and wastewater facilities.
Existing Situation: Factors Driving the Need for Change
In 1991 the City implemented water and wastewater impact fees for the first time. In 2002, the fees were updated
based on a study performed by David Taussig and Associates (DT A). The fees were updated in 2004 by City staff
based on costs associated with the Nacimiento, Water Reuse, and Tank Farm projects.
In November 2006 the City Manager approved a contract in the amount of $19,500 to DTA for consultant
services to update the water and wastewater AB 1600 (development impact fee) study. Over time, there were
several rounds of review and revision associated with finalizing the development impact fee update, some of
which resulted in changes of scope and additional work for the consultant. The time frame to complete the fee
update extended beyond that originally anticipated which resulted in the need to update portions of the data
originally provided to the consultant. In January 2009, the City Manager approved Amendment No. 1 in the
amount of$14,510 and in March 2010, the City Council approved Amendment No.2 in the amount of$10,000.
The primary factors driving the remaining work to be funded by this request include: 1) updating facility costs
based on actual and/or revised estimates especially related to the water reclamation facility; 2) updating
demographic data and growth assumptions; 3) updating the water supply component of the fee study; and 4)
consideration of secondary dwelling units/guest houses.
Goal and Policy Links
1. Major City Goal-Preservation of Essential Services and Fiscal Health
2. City of San Luis Obispo, General Plan, Water and Wastewater Management Element, policy A5.2.5 (water)
and B2.2.3 (wastewater).
Program Work Completed
The identification and creation of wastewater catchment area maps, impact methodology, update of water maps
with specific plan areas, draft development impacts in specific plan areas (Margarita, Airport, Orcutt),
comprehensive narrative updates, draft calculation of add-on fees, draft calculation of citywide fees,
demographics and population estimates, and a draft report have all been completed.
Environmental Review
No environmental review required.
Program Constraints and Limitations
Bringing this project to completion has been challenging due to a myriad factors. It is imperative to focus on
bringing closure to this specific scope of work and ensure development impact fees that reflect past and proposed
D-19
PUBLIC UTILITIES
UPDATE WATER AND WASTEWATER DEVELOPMENT llviP ACT FEE STUDY
facility expenditures are in place for incorporation into the FY 2013-15 Financial Plan fund analyses. There may
be a desire to expand the scope of this project. It will be important to resist expanding the scope of work, stay
focused on completing the project, and carefully note suggested additions for incorporation into the next
development impact fee study undertaken by the department.
Stakeholders
Community Development Department, developers and builders, ratepayers, Utilities and Community
Development Department staff, as well as the City's Economic Development Manager, will work together to
ensure stakeholders are informed.
The City's water and sewer ratepayers will benefit from development impact fees that accurately reflect the costs
incurred to provide service to new development.
Implementation
Task Date
1. Execute contract amendment with consultant
2. Update development impact fee study
3. Conduct stakeholder meetings
4. Present develo ment im act fee recommendations to Council
August 2012
August-October 2012
November-January 2013
Janua 2013
Bringing the updated Water and Wastewater Impact Fee recommendations to Council for adoption in January
2013 allows for adequate time for fee changes to be incorporated into the Water and Sewer Fund projections for
the 2013-15 Financial Plan.
Key Program Assumptions
Costs are based on understanding of the remaining work to be completed by DT A.
Program Manager and Team Support
Program Manager. Utilities Project Manager
Project Team. Deputy Directors from Water and Wastewater, Water Conservation Manager, Deputy Director of
Community Development, Chief Building Official, and the Economic Development Manager.
Alternatives
Use in-house resources to conduct the study. There is in-house expertise to complete the study without the use
of consultant services although there is limited capacity to add this initiative to the current work program. There
are credibility advantages to having the study prepared by an independent, third party which should be considered
by Council if it should direct staff to perform this work in-house.
As the project is currently planned, it is anticipated staff will be performing a good level of work in order to keep
consultant costs to a minimum. Partnering with a consultant to complete this current study is beneficial.
D-20
PUBLIC UTILITIES
UPDATE WATER AND WASTEWATER DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
Operating Program
Water Administration, Wastewater Administration
Cost Summary
The cost of these services will not exceed $15,000.
D-21
PUBLIC UTILITIES
WATER QUALITY STUDIES FOR SAN LUIS OBISPO CREEK
Request Summary
Performing enhanced studies and continuing stakeholder facilitation to better quantify water quality and the
related beneficial uses of San Luis Obispo Creek will cost $275,000 in 2012-13
Key Objectives
1. Providing comprehensive information of water quality in San Luis Obispo Creek.
2. Determining the impacts and effects on the aquatic habitat.
3. Providing an effective and reasonable process to determine appropriate water quality objectives.
4. Eliciting community and stakeholder input.
5. Working collaboratively with regulators and stakeholders.
6. Identifying options and alternatives to meet regulatory and stakeholder conditions.
7. Providing reasonable and protective discharge limits for the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF).
Existing Situation: Factors Driving the Need for Change
The City's Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) discharges to San Luis Obispo Creek and operates under a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued by the Central Coast Water Board
(CCWB). The State has listed San Luis Obispo Creek as a Municipal and Domestic water supply (MUN) which
may require nutrient and Trihalomethane (THM) removal in the WRF's next NPDES permit resulting in a costly
upgrade to the WRF.
Nutrients are found in wastewater and THMs are a by-product of wastewater disinfection. The WRF is in
compliance with its current discharge limits, but if a new permit, with more stringent discharge limitations, is
adopted the City will have 5 years to construct new facilities.
The City has completed a study that shows the creek is not being used as a drinking water source and proposes to
remove the MUN beneficial use. The CCWB disagrees with these fmdings. The City, in collaboration with the
CCWB, has begun a stakeholder process to involve the community for input into protecting the beneficial uses of
the creek including habitat and recreation and to move the process for resolution of this issue forward.
The WRF has a compliance order to achieve the proposed THM limits which will expire in a little less than three
years. Staff is proposing the CCWB extend this order to coordinate with the resolution of the MUN beneficial use
issue and allow the development of a reasonable THM limit.
More stringent nutrient requirements referred to as "biostimulatory" to protect habitat are being proposed
throughout the State. The CCWB has proposed postponing the issuance of the WRF's NPDES permit until the
new biostimulatory methodology has been adopted. It has proposed the City study biostimulatory effects to
provide additional biostimulatory data and information for San Luis Obispo Creek. It has been determined
developing a biostimulatory nutrient limit will postpone the issuance of a revised WRF NPDES permit for 2-3
years.
The proposed biostimulatory methodology for determining nutrient limits may have one or more major problems.
San Luis Obispo Creek is a thriving aquatic habitat and the City has data that indicates the proposed methodology
will not adequately take into account the creek's specific conditions. If this is the case the result may be the
development of very stringent and expensive discharge limits. To provide more additional analytical data and run
the biostimulatory methodology to ensure reasonable and scientifically defensible discharge limits will cost
$250,000 in 2012-13. To provide effective facilitation with stakeholders and regulators and move the process
forward will cost $25,000 in 2012.
D-22
PUBLIC UTILITIES
WATER QUALITY STUDIES FOR SAN LUIS OBISPO CREEK
Goal and Policy Links
1. General Plan, Water and Wastewater Management Element
2. Utilities Department Strategic Plan
3. Water Reclamation Facility Master Plan.
Program Work Completed
Significant work and numerous water quality studies have been performed by the City to satisfy NPDES permit
requirements and determine possible alternatives and solutions to current and proposed future discharge
requirements. Currently the City has a water quality consultant under contract with a scope of work to complete
the study to remove the MUN use designation. The recent desire of the CCWB to postpone the issuance of the
WRF's NPDES permit until a biostimulatory limit can be developed has changed this and will require additional
funding because of the extensive additional sampling and analysis required.
Presently the City has retained a facilitator to help with a stakeholder process that engages the San Luis Obispo
Creek stakeholders and interested parties and to assist in achieving a desired outcome of solutions and alternatives
that are reasonable and protective of San Luis Obispo Creek. Originally anticipated to be short-termed, this
process has taken longer because of the complicated nature of this regulatory issue. The City's facilitator has
become a key team member in strategizing the process's next steps with the City and CCWB while honoring the
stakeholders input. Because of this, facilitation will be critical in the shaping ofthe scope of the enhanced studies
and has become interconnected to the study portion of this request. This is significantly different than the original
scope of the facilitation proposal. This work, along with collaboration with the CCWB, will shape the scope of
the WRF's revised NPDES permit.
Environmental Review
N/A
Program Constraints and Limitations
Currently, this process is allowed within adopted regulatory guidelines and has been successful at moving forward
discussions of options to protect water quality in San Luis Obispo Creek. If this should change, staff will return to
Council with recommended alternatives to this process. Staff will move forward with this approach to ensure the
process does not lose momentum with regulators and stakeholders.
Stakeholders
This project has an identified community stakeholder group that has provided input regarding the protection of the
beneficial uses of San Luis Obispo Creek including the City Manager and Council. Stakeholder participation will
be key in determining and exploring possible water quality strategies, solutions, and alternatives to this issue.
City staff at the WRF, Water Quality Laboratory, and Environmental Programs sections are also stakeholders.
D-23
PUBLIC UTILITIES
WATER QUALITY STUDIES FOR SAN LUIS OBISPO CREEK
Implementation
Task Date
1. Meet and confer with the CCWB
2. Stakeholders meeting
3. Enhanced sampling of San Luis Obispo Creek
4. Comprehensive constituent sampling of San Luis Obispo Creek
5. Biostimulatory stud of San Luis Obis o Creek
Key Program Assumptions
May2012
July 2012
July -Oct 2012
April-Oct 2013
December 2013
This request will provide a short term comprehensive look at water quality in San Luis Obispo Creek and
facilitation to determine if additional studies or work will be required prior to the adoption of the biostimulatory
nutrient limit in the WRF's revised NPDES permit. Cost estimates and implementation have been developed
utilizing past City studies and ongoing regulatory work within the State in conjunction with the on-going
collaboration with the CCWB and stakeholders.
Program Manager and Team Support
Program Manager. Deputy Director of Utilities
Project Team. Utilities Director, Water Quality Lab Manager, Environmental Services Manager, the City's
water quality consultant, and contract facilitator.
Alternatives
1. Continue the Status Quo. This is not a recommended. The City has an opportunity to continue to work
collaboratively with regulators and stakeholders while collecting valuable data that may result in more
reasonable discharge requirements. EPA and CCWB staff believe that the biostimulatory issue must be
answered before a new permit can be issued to the WRF. The collection of additional data and analysis will
provide information that will support the City's position when negotiating and discussing revised discharge
requirements and upgrades at the WRF.
2. Defer or Re-Phase the Request. Deferring this request will result in the loss to collect crucial data and
analysis along with the loss of stakeholder engagement and buy-in. Similar to continuing the status quo, the
loss of a "sampling season" and the momentum of working with the stakeholders and CCWB, may be
detrimental to the City's goals of reasonable discharge limits for the WRF.
3. Change the Scope of Request. This request has been scoped to provide the most responsible and cost
effective study to furnish valuable information and determine the next steps in this process. A complete, in-
depth study would cost $1 million and would likely not provide significantly more valuable data than the
scope of this request. If required or needed, staff will return with additional information and a request to
expand the scope of the study.
Operating Program
Utilities Administration I Engineering (55300)
D-24
PUBLIC UTILITIES
WATER QUALITY STUDIES FOR SAN LUIS OBISPO CREEK
Cost Summary
The funding source is working capital.
D-25
PUBLIC UTILITIES
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE REVIEW-CONSULTANT SERVICES
Request Summary
Continuing improvement in organizational efficiency and effectiveness by ensuring the Utilities Department is
appropriately structured will cost $25,000 in 2012-13.
Key Objectives
1. Completing this review, with consultant expertise, will assist in determining the best organizational structure
for the Utilities Department. While the current structure may turn out to be the best structure; it is good
business practice to conduct such an assessment on a periodic basis. The last organizational structure
assessment was done approximately 20 years ago.
2. Involving all staff in a collaborative process related to this review is key to understanding the influences upon,
and changes taking place in, the workplace and the reasons driving organizational structure change, if change
is required.
3. Ensuring continued responsiveness and provision of outstanding service to the community in an effective and
efficient manner is of high priority and an expected outcome of the organization structure assessment.
Existing Situation: Factors Driving the Need for Change
In an effort to ensure and validate the effectiveness and efficiency of the organizational structure of the Utilities
Department, Utilities staff at all levels have been engaged in discussions to determine current and future
organizational demands and alternative organizational structures that might better serve its stakeholders and the
community.
The current regulatory and economic environment requires an assessment of the department's organizational
structure to ensure continued responsiveness and provision of outstanding service to the community in an
effective and efficient manner.
Hiring a consultant to assess staff work done to-date in this area and related findings from the recent Public
Works organizational assessment, providing expertise to augment staffs work related to the department's internal
organizational structure assessment findings and any proposed organizational structure changes will assist the
department in remaining responsive to the ever-changing regulatory and economic environment.
A focus on continuous improvement to better meet the department's strategic plan goals drives the need to utilize
consultant services to provide further guidance and expertise in the area of organizational structures.
Fundamental shifts in the economic and regulatory environment in recent years have impacted the department;
ensuring the department is appropriately structured to continue to respond effectively to a changing environment
is critical to its long-term success.
Goal and Policy Links
1. Major City Goal-Preservation of Essential Services and Fiscal Health
2. Utilities Department Strategic Plan
Program Work Completed
The proposed use of consultant services is the second phase of a two-phase, two year work effort. The first phase,
on track for June 2012 completion, consists of an internal assessment of the organizational structure of all Utilities
Department sections. These sections are: Water Supply, Water Conservation, Water Distribution/Customer
D-26
PUBLIC UTILITIES
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE REVIEW -CONSULTANT SERVICES
Service, Water Treatment, Wastewater Collection, Environmental Programs, Water Quality Laboratory, Water
Reclamation, Administration/Engineering. Since July 2011, a collaborative process consisting of a series of
individual interviews with section supervisors and managers, meetings with managers/supervisors and deputy
directors, and meetings with all department staff and the management teams has taken place. An internal draft
report will be complete at year-end and will be provided to the consultant for its use. Findings from the recently
completed Public Works organizational assessment will also be provided.
Environmental Review
No environmental review is required.
Program Constraints and Limitations
There are no major program constraints or limitations.
Stakeholders
Depat1ment Stakeholders Outreach strategies
1. Utilities All staff
2. Finance and Information Utility Billing, Information Technology
Technology
3. Public Works Engineering, Permits
4. Community Permits
Development
5. Human Resources Appropriate staff
Implementation
Personal meetings, group meetings,
email, draft reports
Group meetings, email, draft
reports
Group meetings, email, draft
reports
Group meeting, email
Group meetings, email, draft
re orts
Task Date
1. Consultant selection process
2. Review/gather/assess data
3. Final report
Key Program Assumptions
Aug 2012
Nov2012
Dec 2012
The basis of the cost assumption is from a recently conducted organizational structure review for a utility in the
Sacramento area. Implementation timing assumes completion of the internal review by June 2012.
Program Manager and Team Support
Program Manager. Utilities Director
Project Team. Water Division Manager; Wastewater Division Manager; varying levels of support from Finance
and Information Technology, Public Works, Community Development, and Human Resources.
D-27
PUBLIC UTILITIES
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE REVIEW -CONSULTANT SERVICES
Alternatives
Change the Scope of Request This work effort could be completed without utilizing the expertise of a
consultant. A significant amount of work has been accomplished by staff and, although staff is not an
organizational structure expert, completing the study in-house is a viable alternative. There is value-added to
having a consultant review staffs work, bringing a broad perspective to the process, identifying any gaps in
staffs analysis, and assisting staff in grappling with complex organizational structure questions and the roll-out of
any proposed changes.
Operating Program
Utilities Administration/Engineering; Water and Sewer
Cost Summary
The funding source is working capital.
D-28
PUBLIC UTILITIES
UTILITIES BUSINESS MANAGER
Request Summary
Meeting the complex analytic and fiscal needs of the Utilities Department enterprise funds requires the addition of
a Utilities Business Manager to the department's workforce. Adding one FTE will not result in the need to
allocate additional funding as costs are currently budgeted in the 2011-13 Financial Plan for 2012-13 and split
between water and sewer enterprise funds.
Key Objectives
1. Providing comprehensive Water and Sewer enterprise fund analyses will ensure improved responsiveness to a
changing environment.
2. Developing grant and low interest loan opportunities will assist to maximize capital infrastructure
improvements and minimize expenses to the ratepayer.
3. Adding a Utilities Business Manager will most appropriately structure the department's administrative
functions to meet the complex and diverse requirements of the department's budget development, financial
administration and reporting, revenue oversight and forecasting, purchasing, contract administration, metrics,
and systems evaluation.
Existing Situation: Factors Driving the Need for Change
Since the Utilities Department was formed in 1988, over 20 years ago, the current administrative staffing structure
has remained essentially unchanged. In the past two decades many changes have taken place, not just in the fiscal
and regulatory environment in which the Utilities Department operates, but within other City departments as well.
Staffing reductions in the Finance Department, especially the elimination of the Revenue Manager position,
which provided significant assistance to the enterprise funds, has impacted the Utilities Department. Significant
work previously performed for the department by the Revenue Manager was transferred to the Utilities
Department administrative staff. As complex changes have occurred in the environment impacting the enterprise
funds, its administrative structure has not kept up with the changes.
Utilities Director
Utilities Engineer
Administrative Analyst
Secretary
1988
1
1
1
1
Utilities Director
Utilities Project
Senior Admin Analyst
Supervising Admin
Administrative
2011
1
1
1
1
.75
Proposed 2013
Utilities Director
Utilities Project
Administrative Analyst
Supervising Admin
Administrative
Utilities Business
1
1
1
1
.75
1
Based on the City's 1988 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), the water fund had total operating
revenues of $3,319,675 and operating expenses of $2,721,226. Today the 2011 CAFR reports total operating
revenues are $14,256,100 and total operating expenses are $12,389,200. While a significant portion of the
increase in operating expenses are directly attributable to debt service related to bringing on a new water supply,
increased complexities related to managing the fund have occurred.
In 1988, sewer fund total operating revenues were $1,512,711 with total operating expenses of $1,256,648. In
2011, the CAFR reports sewer fund total operating revenues at $13,318,600 with total operating expenses of
$7,119,500.
D-29
PUBLIC UTILITIES
UTILITIES BUSINESS MANAGER
Water Fund
Changes to Operating Revenues and
Expenses
20000000
10000000
0
1988 2011
Ill Rev [!!I] Exp
Sewer Fund
Changes in Operating Revenues and
Expenses
20000000
10000000
0
1988 2011
1111 Rev I!!J Exp
Over time, the Utilities Department, as reflected in changes to operating revenues and expenses, has expanded its
services as it continues to meet community goals and increasingly stringent legal requirements for treating and
delivering drinking water and collecting, treating, and recycling wastewater.
Some examples are:
1. Bringing on-line two new sources of water supply (recycled water and Nacimiento) impacting both
enterprise fund operations and adding debt service requirements
2. Assuming responsibility for the solid waste and recycling franchise, programs, and contract
administration
3. Moving from bi-monthly to monthly meter reading and billing for water and sewer, and changing to a
volumetric sewer rate structure which includes a winter water use period for billing
4. Upgrading the water treatment plant to allow for the treatment and delivery of Nacimiento water
5. Supporting the stormwater program
6. Modifying the water reclamation facility to provide recycled water to the community
7. Increasing the complexity of utility fund management by adhering to provisions of Proposition 218, a
California Constitution amendment, which, over time, has added layers of regulatory requirements
regarding the passage of water and sewer, and most recently solid waste, rates
Operationally, staffing has been modified (38 to 58 full time employees) to accommodate these significant
changes. Some modifications include adding two additional meter readers (one position was eliminated in 2009 as
a cost-cutting measure) related to the change from bi-monthly to monthly billing. Two additional staff (funded by
the General Fund) were added to the wastewater collection system section to support the stormwater program
storm drain maintenance efforts. Although there have been large impacts to Utilities administration, resources
remained focused on field operations with minimal administrative staff added to absorb the impacts of new
initiatives; in fact, as a cost reduction measure, the Utilities Engineer position was eliminated in 2009.
While changes and additional responsibilities and initiatives continue to be added to the department's work
program, administrative and management resources have been stretched to an unsustainable point.
Responsibilities have been delegated throughout the department's management team to the maximum extent
possible, with everyone working together to meet requirements; at times working outside their core areas of
expertise. Front line supervisors currently carry a large burden for financial and administrative aspects of the
operation in order to meet the overall departmental workload demands. While this work is looked upon as a
succession planning opportunity in general, the increasing volume of work draws supervisors away from their
D-30
PUBLIC UTILITIES
UTILITIES BUSINESS MANAGER
core functions as field supervisors, keeping them at their desks for increasingly greater amounts of time. This is
not productive.
The department must think differently about how it is structured and the long-term effectiveness of its business
model. It must provide adequate resources to be good stewards of its growing and changing fiscal and analytic
needs in order to effectively and efficiently function.
Emerging regulatory requirements in water and wastewater treatment will require future infrastructure investment.
Pursuit of grant funding opportunities to offset these costs is not currently pursued due to lack of resources.
Research and applying for grant opportunities would be assigned to the Utilities Business Manager.
The proposed organizational structure related to the department's fiscal and analytic needs, which includes the
addition of a Utilities Business Manager, has been pilot tested since November 2011. The department is seeing the
benefits of increased in-depth analysis related to the department's revenues, operational changes are being
enacted, and processes are being streamlined to improve effectiveness. The structure is more collaborative with a
broader range of staff involved with the review and accomplishment of fiscal and analytic activities. It supports a
more appropriate division of duties, which is good business practice. Field supervisors will begin to reap the
benefits of the new structure as it solidifies and stabilizes.
The addition of a Business Manager in advance of the completion of the broader organizational structure analysis
(scheduled for completion in 2012-13) is necessary and critical to meet the immediate and long-range needs of the
department. The broader analysis has been underway for almost a year; the Business Manager position is aligned
with findings to-date from that analysis.
Goal and Policy Links
1. Major City Goal-Preservation of Essential Services and Fiscal Health
2. Other Important Council Objectives-Infrastructure Maintenance
3. General Plan Water and Wastewater Management Element
4. City of San Luis Obispo Organizational Values
5. Utilities Department Strategic Plan
Program Work Completed
The comprehensive analytic and fiscal needs of the Utilities Department have been undergoing assessment since
July 2010. This work complements the broader organizational structure analysis that commenced in July 2011.
The administrative assessment included an extensive analysis of the fiscal and analytic needs of each of the nine
major work groups (or sections) in the Utilities Department and the appropriate division of work/skill level
required to meet those needs. A minimum of one FTE is needed to meet the position requirements with
intermittent, reasonable overtime requirements related to the financial planning process. The day-to-day staff
engagement and supervisory requirements, as well as the diversity and complexity of position job duties, does not
effectively lend itself to contracting out.
Information regarding the administrative/fiscal structure in similar enterprise fund-based organizations was
gathered and analyzed. The organizations are the cities of Davis, Napa, Monterey, Palo Alto, Palm Springs, Santa
Barbara, Santa Cruz, Santa Maria, and Ventura.
Due to a staff resignation in Utilities Administration, the department was allowed the opportunity to pilot test the
proposed structure since November 2011. Staffing associated with this pilot test has provided critical resources to
manage the complex analytic demands of the department and maintain proper stewardship of resources. While
D-31
PUBLIC UTILITIES
UTILITIES BUSINESS MANAGER
staffing has been temporary, and portions of it on a part time basis despite full-time workload requirements, the
proposed structure is working and essential to meet the department's overall fiscal and analytic needs.
Staff from the Departments of Finance and Information Technology, Human Resources, and Administration have
provided support, guidance, and review throughout the assessment. A draft job description for the Utilities
Business Manager has been created and is undergoing review by Human Resources.
Environmental Review
No environmental review required.
Program Constraints and Limitations
A significant constraint is the amount of time it will take to recruit and put into place the new structure. It is
requested the City Council, if it should approve the position of Utilities Business Manager, authorize the position
recruitment at the time of the enterprise fund analysis presentation on June 12, 2012. This will accelerate the
ability to fill the position in the new fiscal year and allow the new person more time to come up to speed prior to
the upcoming 2013-15 Financial Planning process.
Funding for the anticipated addition of a Utilities Engineer (or similar position) was included in the 2011-13
Financial Plan as part of the fund analysis for 2012-13 due to concerns at the time with increasing complexities
related to the enterprise funds, workload balance, and constraints facing field supervisors. Using the FY 2012-13
budgeted funding for the proposed business manager position is the best use of these resources. Additionally, as
part of the proposed changes, the department's existing senior administrative analyst position (currently vacant)
will be reclassified to an analyst position. As part of the pilot test, the analyst position is being filled on a
temporary basis by existing staff working out-of-grade; it will need to be permanently filled after the hiring of the
business manager.
Stakeholders
Stakeholders include the Utilities and Finance Departments. Stakeholders are involved in the current pilot study
during daily business interface.
Implementation
Task Date
1. Implement organizational pilot study
2. Finalize job description
3. Obtain approval from Council, advertise for position
4. Com lete hirin
Key Program Assumptions
The job description and salary range are finalized prior to June 2012.
Program Manager and Team Support
Program Manager. Utilities Director
D-32
Nov 11-
Current
Apr 2012
Jun 2012
Se 2012
PUBLIC UTILITIES
UTILITIES BUSINESS MANAGER
Project Team. City Manager, Human Resources Director, Former Interim and Current Finance and Information
Technology Directors, staff from each department
Alternatives
Continue the Status Quo. While the status quo is no longer a sustainable business model, if Council should
choose not to authorize the Utilities Business Manager position, the community would continue to receive clean
water and the collection and treatment of wastewater. The Senior Administrative Analyst position currently
authorized would be filled. There is not capacity in one FTE, even with so many tasks delegated throughout the
department, to accomplish all the work required to adequately meet the department's complex fiscal and analytic
needs, even utilizing consultant services. A reduction in responsiveness and customer service would result with
serious workload impacts on existing staff. There would be no capacity for new initiatives. The magnitude of
overtime currently required by exempt staff to accomplish the work would remain unsustainable and could result
in significant position turnover.
Operating Program
Water and Wastewater Administration and Engineering.
Cost Summary
Funding for the anticipated addition of a Utilities Engineer (or similar position) was included in the 2011-13
Financial Plan as part of the fund analysis for 2012-13 and incorporated into future year projections. Additionally,
as part of the proposed changes, the department's existing Senior Administrative Analyst position (currently
vacant) will be reclassified to an analyst position resulting in lower staffing costs for the reclassified position.
Sewer Administration 520-55300-7110
520-55300-7040
520-55300-7042
520-55300-7044
520-55300-7046
D-33
49,100
11,300
8,400
PUBLIC UTILITIES
WATER SOURCE OF SUPPLY: Nacimiento Water Project
Request Summary
Aligning the 2012-13 Source of Supply operating program budget with the 2012-13 Nacimiento Water Operating
Fund budget recently adopted by the Nacimiento Project Commission will reduce costs by $276,400.
Key Objective
Ensuring budget projections appropriately reflect water supply costs.
Existing Situation: Factors Driving the Need for Change
1. The Nacimiento Project Commission adopted the 2012-13 Nacimiento Water Operating Fund budget on April
19, 2012. Changes to the budget reflect increased experience with project implementation. This is the second
year of operation for the project.
2. Nacimiento Water Project routine operation and maintenance expenditures (excluding energy costs) decreased
$197,219 due to the following:
a) Transition of contract project management to County Utility Operations staff
b) Environmental Mitigation Efforts. Expenses will be paid out of construction fund savings rather than
operations budget until such time construction funding is exhausted.
c) Operator and Office Engineering Efforts. Budget reduced as District continues to refine line item with
operating history data.
3. Master Water Plan decreased $10,321
4. Variable Energy Costs projection decreased $36,117
5. Non-Routine Operations and Maintenance decreased $12,720
6. Capital Projects decreased $20,000
7. Capital Reserves I Equipment Replacement decreased $61
NWP Budget Line Item Pro.iected Adopted Variance
RoutineO&M $1,003,700 $806,481 ($197,219)
Master Water Plan $82,000 $71,679 ($10,321)
Variable Energy $453,800 $417,683 ($36,117)
Non-routine O&M $15,000 $2,280 ($12,720)
Capital Proj_ects $20,000 $0 ($20,000)
Capital Reserves I $171,600 $171,539 ($61)
Equipment Replacement
TOTAL $1,746,100 $1,469,662 ($276,438)
Goal and Policy Links
1. Major City Goal-Preservation of Essential Services and Fiscal Health
2. General Plan Water and Wastewater Management Element
Program Work Completed
Nacimiento Project Commission adopted its 2012-13 budget on April19, 2012.
Environmental Review
No environmental review required.
D-34
PUBLIC UTILITIES
WATER SOURCE OF SUPPLY: Nacimiento Water Project
Program Constraints and Limitations
There are no significant project constraints.
Stakeholders
Utilities Department and City water rate payers.
Implementation
Nacimiento Project Commission adopted 2012-13 budget on April19, 2012.
Key Program Assumptions
None
Program Manager and Team Support
Program Manager. Water Division Manager
Project Team. Senior Administrative Analyst
Alternatives
There are no alternatives.
Operating Program
Water Source of Supply
Cost Summary
Aligning the Source of Supply operating budget with the adopted 2012-13 Nacimiento Water Operating Fund
budget represents a savings of $276,400 in 2012-13.
D-35
TRANSPORTATION
SIGNAL MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN SALARY
Request Summary
Providing for an additional Signal and Street Lighting technician to provide overlap with a retiring technician will
cost $40,400 in regular salary and benefits in 2012-13.
Key Objectives
1. Provide cost effective maintenance services for the traffic signals and street lighting
2. Improve safety and operation of the traffic signal and street lighting systems
Existing Situation: Factors Driving the Need for Change
The City currently has two traffic signal and street lighting maintenance technician positions to provide
maintenance and support of the systems. The technicians provide a variety of services including preventive
maintenance, minor new equipment installations, failure or damage response, and construction support. Failure
and damage response, along with construction support are priority areas as the need is immediate and response
can be critical for public safety. The City's system consists of 2,240 street lights and 69 traffic signals and, while
not completely unique, employs a number of very sophisticated elements in order to minimize staffing demand.
These include such elements as a central management system, interconnection between signals, wireless live
video streaming, IP based networked devices, audible & tactile pedestrian systems, and an electrical components
inventory database. The trade-off for minimizing staffmg demand with a sophisticated system is the need to have
highly trained technical staff.
The first signal maintenance position was established in the mid-1980s, with the second established in the 2007-
09 Financial Plan to address ongoing challenges in keeping a large and complex system operational and
maintained. This addition provided the only backup for the signal maintenance position and allowed staff to train
a new employee in anticipation of a retirement that, at the time, was expected in approximately 3 years.
For approximately 21 months (June 2009 until March 2012), there was a staffmg shortage, leaving a single
employee again responsible for maintenance of the entire system. As part of the 2011-12 Mid-Year budget, an
augmentation of temporary salaries was approved, with this ongoing need to come from continued salary savings
of the absent employee. Very recently the absent employee returned to work and a temporary employee can no
longer be funded with salary savings.
The City has now received notice of the retirement, at the end of December 2012, of its long-tenured signal
maintenance technician. Staff believes it is imperative to initiate an aggressive training program in advance of his
departure given the complexity of the system. While the second employee has recently returned, it will be difficult
for him to absorb all the information on such a sophisticated system, in such a short time. Given his very short
period on the job prior to his absence, coupled with the very long absence, staff is re-initiating training of this
inexperienced employee to the specialized equipment in the signal and lighting area. Further, the likelihood that
he would be able to then effectively transfer the complex knowledge to another new employee is low, again due to
the need to continue maintenance while transferring knowledge.
Although staff has undertaken considerable documentation of the system, and is continuing to augment that
documentation, staff believes that hiring an additional employee ahead of the retirement will increase the
likelihood that the long-tenured employee can effectively transfer his system knowledge to two employees
allowing each to focus on smaller areas of the system for more in-depth learning. The added employee will also
assist in completing the backlog of service and maintenance work that accumulated during the long absence at a
lower cost than contract services. Once the five months of side-by-side training is complete, and the long-tenured
employee retires, staffing levels will return to two regular full-time signal technicians.
D-36
TRANSPORTATION
SIGNAL MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN SALARY
Goal and Policy Links
1. Major City Goal-Traffic Congestion Relief
2. Council Objective-Infrastructure Maintenance
3. Signal and Light Maintenance Program Goal-Ensure safe and efficient traffic flow through intersections and
well lighted streets and neighborhoods
Program Work Completed
NIA
Environmental Review
NIA
Program Constraints and Limitations
Skilled electricians may be difficult to find to fill the position.
Stakeholders
City residents and the general public are the primary stakeholders of a properly operating signal system. Internal
staff attempting to provide emergency response will also benefit by the presence of additional staff.
Implementation
Staff anticipated beginning the signal technician recruitment in June-July 2012 with the hiring of a new signal
technician in August 2012. This schedule will allow for 5 months of side-by-side training and knowledge transfer
of City's complex signal system ahead of the long-tenured employee's retirement at the end of December.
Key Program Assumptions
The implementation assumes that skilled electricians are available in the job market to apply for the technician
position.
Program Manager and Team Support
Program Manager. Street Maintenance Supervisor
Project Team. Deputy Director of Public Works and Human Resources Department staff
D-37
TRANSPORTATION
SIGNAL MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN SALARY
Alternatives
1. Continue the Status Quo or Defer the Request. The signal and lighting technician will continue to train the
recently returned employee. There may be an increased risk of system failures upon retirement of the long
term employee. Additional congestion and or delay should be anticipated with failures.
2. Implementation in a Different Way.
Contract Services. The City could expand its use of contract services in the future to provide response to
situations beyond the experience of the remaining employee. The response time of contract services will not
be the same as that of a local staff person, and the system knowledge will be limited for the contract service
company. In comparing the cost of using on-call contract services with the cost of regular staff, including all
indirect costs, the City is able to provide these services less expensively.
Temporary Staffing. Another alternative would be to attempt a recruitment of a temporary employee. The
City is not required to pay benefits for temporary employees so this alternative would save an estimated
$19,800 during the five months compared to a regular employee. Temporary employment is unlikely to draw
signal technicians with existing permanent employment, thus reducing the likelihood staff would be
successful in preparing for the retirement.
Operating Program
(50330) Signal and Street Lighting Maintenance
Cost Summary
The total cost for providing regular salary and benefit funding in the Signal and Street Lighting program (50330)
budget is estimated at $40,400 in the 2012-13 fiscal year. Measure Y funds will be used for this purpose.
Regular Salaries 100.50330.7010 25,300
PERS 100.50330.7040 8,300
Insurance 100.50330.7042 6,300
Unemployment Insurance 100.50330.7046 100
Medicare 100.50330.7044 400
D-38
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
HOUSING PROGRAM FUNDING GAP
Request Summary
Offsetting the reduction in the City's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding allocation and
providing full funding for the Housing Assistance Program will cost $21,200 in 2012-13. This will be paid from
the Park Hotel Fund. The Park Hotel Funds are unrestricted and unallocated CDBG funds similar to a completed
projects account that can be used to fund the current gap in funding.
Key Objectives
Fully funding the Housing Assistance Program, which primarily consists of the Housing Programs Manager
position, will allow the Community Development Department to administer the City's CDBG Program,
implement the Housing Element Programs, manage the City's Inclusionary Housing Program and manage the
City's Affordable Housing Fund, Grant Award Program and assist local service providers address the needs of the
City's homeless population.
Existing Situation: Factors Driving the Need for Change
On February 21, 2012, the City Council approved funding allocations of $573,125 for the 2012 CDBG Program
Year. The preliminary funding estimate was provided to the City by the County based on available information
from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The recently adopted 2012 Federal
budget included a 12% reduction in overall CDBG program funding. On March 13, 2012, HUD released its new
funding estimate for the County, which reflects the Federal budget reduction to the CDBG program. This has
resulted in an 11.6% ($66,567) reduction to the City's 2012 Program Year allocation for a total allocation of
$506,658. The Housing Program budget for 2012-13 is $122,500. Based on HUD's estimated allocation, funding
for program administration and Housing Element implementation (restricted to 20% of total grant allocation) the
CDBG contribution for the Housing Program is $101,300, which results in a $21,200 funding gap for the Housing
Program. The limited amount of CDBG funding available and the restriction on the use the CDBG funds is likely
to continue into the future.
In the 1980's the City utilized CDBG funding to provide a loan to the Park Hotel for historic rehabilitation efforts.
A separate fund and bank account were established to account for the re-payment of the Park Hotel loan, which
was repaid in approximately March 2004. Although there was no requirement to use the loan proceeds for CDBG
projects, the City has historically used the accumulated loan repayment funds to support CDBG type activities: at-
risk youth programs, housing studies and other activities that would otherwise be grant eligible, but for the
limitation on the amount of Public Service activities the CDBG can provide. Recently it has come to the attention
of staff that there is $39,124 available in this account.
Because of the limitation on CDBG funding and the likelihood of an ongoing gap in funding for the Housing
Program, staff recommends using the Park Hotel Fund to provide full funding for the program in 2012-13. Staff
recognizes that the Park Hotel Fund is one-time funding yet the need is ongoing, therefore a long-term strategy for
funding it will be required when the City prepares the 2013-15 Financial Plan.
Goal and Policy Links
1. Other Important Council Objective: Affordable Housing/Homeless Services
2. General Plan Housing Element Implementation
3. Implementation of the 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness
D-39
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
HOUSING PROGRAM FUNDING GAP
Program Work Completed
The funding gap amount of $21,200 was identified by comparing the 2012-13 Housing Assistance Program
budget and the new funding estimate provided by HUD. Over the past 10 years, the position has assisted in
adding 287 new affordable housing units to the city. The Housing Programs Manager responsibilities involve
seeking additional housing opportunities to help the City achieve a healthier jobs-housing balance.
For the 2011-13 Financial Plan, the program has leveraged over $1 million dollars in CDBG funds used for
projects and programs that benefit low-and moderate-income households, businesses and community-based
organizations, including funds for City capital projects such as handicap ramps and community center
improvements. In addition, the program work has resulted in the City being eligible for a Housing and
Community Development grant of over $117,000 in this next fiscal year that will enable the City to off-set
General Funds when replacing playground equipment.
#of Affordable Housing Units
2001-11
100 +----------------------------------------
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
The Housing Programs Manager position plays a key role in addressing the housing part of the jobs-housing
ratio. This ratio is a measure of employment compared to housing in the City limits. It is a planning tool to
determine whether a roughly equal number of jobs and housing units (households) exist. According to planning
literature, the common target is a ratio of 1.5: 1. A higher ratio indicates that the number of jobs in a community
outweighs the workers who live there and tends to generate commuting patterns that have implications for
infrastructure costs for development and maintenance. Since the Land Use Element goals show the City serving
as the county's hub for county and state government; education; transportation; professional, medical and social
services; entertainment; and retail trade, maintaining this jobs-housing balance is a challenge. The Housing
Programs Manager focuses staff resources, works with the development community, and leverages grants and
inclusionary housing funds to achieve as many housing units as possible.
Jobs-Housing Balance
Estimated jobs in City limits 33,451
Housing units 20,671
Jobs to housing ratio 1.6:1
Cal Poly jobs (not in City) 2,278
California Men's Colonyjobs (not in City) 1,899
Jobs to housing ratio including neighboring major employers (Poly and Men's Colony) 1.8:1
Sources: 2007 Economic Census; Cal Poly, CMC, Community Development, 2011.
D-40
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
HOUSING PROGRAM FUNDING GAP
Environmental Review
N/A
Program Constraints and Limitations
The Park Hotel Fund provides a one-time source of funding. The current balance available in the Park Hotel Fund
is $39,124. Identifying ongoing funding source will be required in the future.
Stakeholders
Community members that rely on the work provided by the Housing Programs Manager, including but not limited
to:
• Community Action Partners San Luis Obispo (CAPSLO)
• Workforce Housing Coalition (WHC)
• San Luis Obispo County Housing Trust Fund (HTF)
• Friends of Prado Day Center
• Affordable housing and market rate developers
• Inclusionary Housing owners and renters
• People's Self Help Housing Corporation
• Non-profit organizations
• Habitat for Humanity
• Mission Community Services Corporation
• Transitions Mental Health Association
• Women's Shelter Program ofSLO County
• AIDS Support Network
• Tri-Counties Housing Corporation
• Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo (HASLO)
• Homeless Services Oversight Council (HSOC)
Implementation
Key Program Assumptions
The basis for the cost projections is the City's annual CDBG funding allocation. The 2012 CDBG funding
allocation for program administration was $21,200 less than previously expected.
Program Manager and Team Support
Program Manager. Housing Programs Manager
Project Team. Deputy Director of Community Development, Director of Community Development
D-41
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
HOUSING PROGRAM FUNDING GAP
Alternatives
1. Continue the Status Quo. This is not recommended because it will result in a budget deficit for the program.
CDBG funding will not be suffic~ent in 2012-13 to provide for the Housing Programs Manager position.
2. Reduce the Housing Programs Manager position to less than full time status. This is not recommended
because the responsibilities associated with the position require full time status. The position is required to
attend regular evening meetings with advisory bodies and non-profit community services' boards outside of
the normal work time hours. The position's responsibilities have increased over the past ten years, for
example, 1) the number of affordable housing units the position monitors and services has increased by 287
units since 2001, 2) Federal CDBG reporting, tracking and monitoring requirements have increased, 3) the
last four Financial Plans have identified production of affordable housing as either a Major City Goal or
Other Important Council Objective resulting in an increase in staffing efforts and resource needs associated
with this position, and 4) the position has seen a larger role in Council identified special projects such as the
Safe Parking program, homeless service coordination and housing opportunities through infill development.
3. Fund the position in a different way. This is not recommended at this time. While there are other possible
funding alternatives to help cover the gap in CDBG funding, including the possible use of the General Fund,
the Affordable Housing Fund or some other fund, staff will need time to evaluate the appropriateness of these
alternatives and formulate a recommendation. Consideration of other funding sources will be included in the
2013-15 Financial Plan.
Operating Program
(240-60650) Housing Program.
Cost Summary
Current Housing Assistance Program Budget 2012-13
Staffing $ 119,400
Other Operating Expenditures $ 3,100
Total Operating Budget $ 122,500
CDBG Allocation -Housing Program $ (101,300)
Park Hotel Funds required for Housing Program $ 21,200
D-42
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
COMMUNITY PROMOTIONS STAFFING-TOURISM MANAGER
Request Summary
Within the Economic Development program, hire a full-time, contract position as tourism manager to spearhead
the Tourism Business Improvement District program and Community Promotions will cost $93,100 in 2012-13
and $111,700 annually thereafter. The Tourism Manager will be the staff liaison for the Tourism Business
Improvement District Board (TBID) and the Promotional Coordinating Committee (PCC) and will be paid with
existing funds from these programs.
Key Objectives
1. Continue to grow the tourism marketing program of the City of San Luis Obispo.
2. Capitalize fully from all the investments currently done through the TBID Fund.
3. Coordinate efforts between the internal marketing arm (Community Promotions) and the external marketing
approach (TBID).
4. Integrate tourism into the economic development program to better coordinate the City's overall approach in
economic development.
Existing Situation: Factors Driving the Need for Change
Until 2008, the Administration Department spearheaded the City's Community Promotions efforts and the
program under the Promotional Coordinating Committee. The program entailed advertising the City as a tourism
destination, the administration of Grants-in-Aid program for non-profit organizations, countywide tourism, PR,
and events promotion efforts. The program's goal was to advertise the City as a tourism destination and to
enhance the recreational, cultural, and social life of City's residents.
In 2008, the City approved the formation of a tourism business improvement district as requested by the City's
lodging industry. Formed under the State's Streets and Highway Code, the assessment funds have to be used for
tourism marketing to benefit the industry paying into the assessment. An advisory body was formed, staffed by
City hoteliers, to advise the City Council on the use of the assessment. The same staff person serving as the
liaison to the PCC was assigned to the TBID in order to further collaboration between the programs. In the four
years since, the TBID program has steadily increased its efforts and programmatic approach and is now investing
in marketing efforts, events promotion, PR, tradeshows, industry groups, and promotional material. Combined,
the two programs now require a full-time person to ensure investments are properly contracted and coordinated,
as well as fully taken advantage of. This often requires travel to tradeshows, board meetings, advocacy session,
and conferences. The program has become an important economic driver, having a direct impact on the third
largest revenue to the City-Transient Occupancy Tax.
It has become apparent that the current part-time staffing levels are insufficient to take advantage of the
investments made and keep up with the ever-increasing needs of the tourism marketing program. The TBID
therefore appointed a task force to come forth with a staffing level recommendation. During its April meeting, the
TBID board entertained the recommendation of the task force to hire a full-time, entry-level management position
on a contract basis. The TBID was looking to the PCC to contribute to this effort as the staff person would be
assigned to both advisory bodies and the respective programs.
The TBID reached the conclusion to hire an entry-level management position based on the research on other
jurisdictions, including contract work, the demand for travel and weekend engagements, as well as the potential to
attract a tourism professional. The committee felt that a full-time City employee hired on a contract basis would
allow for adjustments considering the evolving nature of the program and lend itself perfectly for growth and
expansion opportunity over time. Additionally, the main funding source, Tourism Business Improvement District
D-43
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
COMMUNITY PROMOTIONS STAFFING-TOURISM MANAGER
Assessment, is funded year-by-year and is subject to approval by its constituency during the Districts annual
review in a public hearing.
It should be noted that there will be an impact to the General Fund from this change. Presently, the TBID provides
the City with 4% of its assessment to cover administrative costs. These costs have included Administration staff
liaison time during TBID meetings. As part of the TBID's commitment to fund the new position, it is
recommending a reduction in this administrative cost from 4% to 2%. This will result in a cost reduction for
2012-13 from $40,600 to $20,300 to the TBID fund and a commensurate cost increase to the General Fund.
The addition of the Tourism Manager position enables a reorganization of the Administration Department during
2012-13. The Principal Administrative Analyst will begin reporting directly to the City Manager, as the new
Tourism Manager takes over the reins of the Community Promotions Program. Community Promotions will be
supervised by the Economic Development Manager. These changes reduce the span of control for the Assistant
City Manager, provide additional direct support to the City Manager, and integrate the City's Economic
Development program with its tourism efforts.
Goal and Policy Links
1. Economic Development is currently a Major City Goal. Tourism is one of the most important industries of the
City.
2. Ordinance No. 1517 -2008 Series formed the TBID and stipulates the use of the assessment funds.
Program Work Completed
The TBID board took the lead in establishing the requirements for this position. Staff completed research for job
titles, place within the organization, type of employment, cost, and funding options. A joint-task force between
the TBID and the PCC will convene to discuss recommended job requirements and description for the position.
The recommendations will be forwarded to the Human Resources Department for consideration in the
development of the position's job description.
Stakeholders
Both the TBID and PCC are stakeholders and both advisory bodies have unanimously recommended the
formation of the position. However, the City as a whole stands to gain from this investment in economic
development and tourism efforts. The Administration department will regain its Principal Administrative Analyst
as fully assigned to policy and fiscal matters under the City Manager.
Implementation
Task Date
3. Development of recommended job description & requirements by advisory bodies
4. Release of Recruitment
5. Hiring of Position
Key Program Assumptions
June 2012
July 2012
Se tember 2012
Staff assumes that the position will be hired by September 2012 and that the switch of job duties from the
Principal Administrative Analyst (PAA) to the new Tourism Manager will happen by October 2012. The PAA
will remain available to the new employee as well as the Economic Development program as a whole to maintain
the knowledge base and consistency for the tourism program.
D-44
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
COMMUNITY PROMOTIONS STAFFING-TOURISM MANAGER
Program Manager and Team Support
Program Manager: Economic Development Manager
Project Team: Assistant City Manager, Principal Admin. Analyst
Additional involvement of the TBID Board and the PCC
Alternatives
1. Keep staffing levels as is: This is not recommended as the tourism marketing program requires a full-time
person to administer the tasks of a consistently growing and increasingly time-consuming program.
Additionally, there is a need in Administration to regain full capacity of the Principal Administrative Analyst
to address policy and fiscal projects under the City Manager
2. Hire Contract Staffing/Consultant: The task force reviewed the option of contracting for these services.
However, the task force members found that similar positions were paid at a higher level than contemplated
by this request. Additionally, accountability, availability, and overhead cost were additional factors that lead
to the recommendation of a city position on a contract basis.
Operating Program
Community Promotions-12100 (TBID Fund) & 11300 (Community Promotions)
Cost Summary
The cost of this position will be paid for by existing budget within the TBID fund and Community Promotions.
However, there is a negative impact on the General Fund revenue as the TBID reimbursement for administration
of the fund has been reduced from 4% of assessment value ($40,600) to 2% ($20,300) in 2012-13 and will be
assessed at 2% of assessment value in future years.
Community Promotions-11300.7337
Salaries
Retirement Contribution
PARS
Insurance
Medicare
Promotions contract services
D-45
12100.7010
12100.7040
12100.7041
12100.7042
12100.7044
12100.7046
11300.7010
11300.7040
11300.7041
11300.7042
11300.7044
11300.7046
54,000
12,400
600
11,100
700
200
9,500
2,200
100
2,000
200
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
CITY CLERK OFFICE REORGANIZATION
Request Summary
Ensuring the City Clerk program meets its legal obligations and supports City Council meetings, elections,
advisory body recruitments, and records management by creating a Deputy City Clerk position and adding a three
quarter time Administrative Assistant will cost $45,600 annually. In addition, City costs associated with General
Elections will require additional funding in the amount of $6,000 annually.
Key Objectives
1. Maintain a high level of service provision in the City Clerk's Office while providing additional support for
the City Clerk.
2. Create a succession planning opportunity with the goal of providing continuity of service provision in the City
Clerk's Office over time.
3. Increase coverage and support in the Administration Office for the public, the City Council and the City
Manager.
4. Respond to a reduction in State funding for local vote by mail during elections.
Existing Situation: Factors Driving the Need for Change
The City Clerk program underwent major personnel changes in the third quarter of the 2011-12 fiscal year and the
department utilized this situation as an opportunity to evaluate job duties and the clerical needs of the program. In
order to continue the functions of the program short-term, the currently vacant half-time City Worker 7 and full-time
Administrative Assistant II positions are filled by temporary staff, and the City Clerk's position is staffed through an
Interim assignment following the departure of the City Clerk on March 30,2012.
The review and evaluation of the program indicated the need to create a Deputy City Clerk position to provide
increased support for the City Clerk in the short term and the Council and public in the long term. Over the past few
years, the Administrative Assistant II acted as the Deputy City Clerk, but was not able to fulfill all of the duties
needed by the Department. Specifically, an employee filling an Administrative Assistant II position would not
necessarily have the ability or desire to clerk a City Council meeting. Planning for "back-up" in case the City Clerk is
unavailable for a meeting is a fundamental purpose of the proposed change. The proposed job description for the
Deputy City Clerk clearly establishes this function as a job responsibility. In addition, establishing a Deputy City
Clerk position will create a succession planning opportunity with the goal of providing continuity of service provision
in the City Clerk's Office over time.
In consideration of the job duties of the half-time City Worker 7 position, two important factors were considered.
First, the responsibilities of the position are on-going in nature and are fundamental to the efficient and effective
operations of the City Clerk's Office. The person in this position normally occupies the front counter and is the "face"
of City Hall -greeting, directing and answering questions for those who come in the front door. In addition to this
duty and a wide-range of on-going clerical assignments (such as assisting with the Advisory Body Recruitment
process), the Administration Department has a need for improved office coverage for flex days, vacation days,
training days and other times when the Executive Administrative Assistant is unavailable. During these times, the
proposed three-quarter time, Administrative Assistant I, would be located in the Administration office and from this
desk would be available to serve the public, the City Council and the City Manager.
In summary, the new Deputy City Clerk position will assume duties and responsibilities that are not normally
demanded of an Administrative Assistant II, and the proposed three-quarter time Administrative Assistant I
position will be responsible for all of the duties of the former half-time City Worker 7 position, and some of the
job duties formerly handled by the Administrative Assistant II position. It will also address a shortfall of
D-46
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
CITY CLERK OFFICE REORGANIZATION
administrative assistance in the Administration department following the elimination of the Administrative
Assistant III position in that department.
Below is a chart representing the City Clerk's Office staffing levels proposed over the coming three to four
months:
Budgeted Positions Staffing per Apri11, 2012 Proposed per July 1, 2012
2011-13 Financial Plan
City Clerk City Clerk/Interim City Clerk
Administrative Assistant Deputy City Clerk
II Temporary Full-Time Employee (same salary range as an
Administrative Assistant III)
City Worker 7-% time Administrative Assistant I % time Administrative Assistant I Temporary Staffin_g
Additional Temporary As needed for election and special As needed for election and special Staffing budget for assignments assignments support during elections.
Goal and Policy Links
The City Clerk's Office provides a variety of support and information services to the Council, the public and City
staff. Two program goals directly impacted by this request are the ability to provide complete and accurate
records of Council actions and policies, and election administration.
Program Work Completed
A job description and duties have already been drafted for the Deputy City Clerk position.
Environmental Review
No environmental review required.
Program Constraints and Limitations
Constraints include the ability to find suitable candidates to fulfill the duties of the City Clerk and Deputy
positions.
Stakeholders
Stakeholders include residents, Council, and staff.
D-47
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
CITY CLERK OFFICE REORGANIZATION
Implementation
Task Date
1. Initiate City Clerk recruitment
2. Hire new City Clerk
3. Finalize Deputy City Clerk job description
4. Begin De ut Ci Clerk Recruitment
Key Program Assumptions
3/12
7/12
7/12
7/12
Program assumptions include the ability to fill the City Clerk and Deputy City Clerk positions within the current
salary ranges.
Program Manager and Team Support
Program Manager. City Manager and Assistant City Manager
Project Team. City Clerk, Deputy City Clerk, Administrative Assistant I, Executive Administration Assistant
Alternatives
Continue the Status Quo. This is not a recommended alternative as the City Clerk and staff are integral positions
to the City.
Existing Program Evaluation. The City Clerk function is a highly specialized area in municipal government.
Contracting this position and program to an outside organization is not a viable option. Additionally, the staffing
levels have proved to be permanent as the temporary position was employed for many years for a function that is
not temporary in nature.
Operating Program
Administration & Records
Cost Summary
There is currently $223,700 budgeted for staffing in the City Clerk's Office which includes the City Clerk, an
Administrative Assistant II, a half-time temporary position and additional funding for temporary staffing. With
the reorganization of the Clerk's Office, staff has analyzed the staffing costs for positions at different levels,
including a Deputy City Clerk (Admin. Assistant III) at step 1 and 3 salary range, and an Administrative Assistant
I at step 1 and 3 salary range at three-quarter time as it compares to the current 2011-12 budget. The recruitment
and hiring of a three-quarter time Administrative Assistant instead of an Administrative Assistant II position
provides a salary cost savings of$18,400.
There is also currently $31,700 budgeted in temporary salaries for the Clerk's Office. Staff recommends reducing
this to $13,300 for temporary salaries assistance during elections and for special assignments, resulting in
additional salary cost savings of$18,400.
D-48
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
CITY CLERK OFFICE REORGANIZATION
Retirement Contribution
PARS
Insurance
Medicare
Temporary salaries reduction
Admin II to 3/4 FTE Admin I
Salaries
Retirement Contribution
Medicare
100.7014
100.7010
100.7040
100.7044
20100.7046
D-49
15,100
700
(18,400)
(13,600)
(4,500)
(200)
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
DEPUTY DIRECTOR LEAVE COVERAGE
Request Summary
Adding contract services to provide critical program support during an extended leave of absence of the Deputy
Director of Public Works position will cost $85,100 in contract services in 2012-13.
Key Objectives
1. Ensuring staff time is available to implement the Major City Goals of Transportation Congestion Relief and
Neighborhood Wellness.
2. Ensuring staff time is available to implement transportation capital improvement projects.
3. Ensuring staff time is available to assist with the Land Use and Circulation Element updates.
4. Maintaining compliance with grant implementation deadlines and requirements.
5. Developing grant and low interest loan opportunities will assist to maximize capital infrastructure
improvements and minimize expenses.
6. Ensuring implementation of the City's annual Traffic Operations Report.
7. Ensuring implementation of the City's Neighborhood Traffic Management Programs.
8. Completing the Los Osos Valley Road Interchange project.
9. Maintaining timely responses to citizen requests.
10. Completing the Bicycle Transportation Plan Update to remain eligible for Bicycle Transportation grants.
Existing Situation: Factors Driving the Need for Change
In September 2011, the Deputy Director of Public Works took an extended leave of absence; staff expects him to
return to full-time work by January 2013.
The Deputy Director of Public Works position is responsible for planning, organizing, overseeing and reviewing
programs and activities for all transportation programs, including: transportation planning, traffic engineering,
parking, bicycle, pedestrian, and public transit. Additionally this position is involved on a daily basis with the
private sector and reviews development for compliance with codes, ordinances and standards. This higher-level
position is a key member of the departmental management team also serves as a departmental and City liaison and
provides effective customer service to the community and project applicants' on transportation and development
matters. This position often confers with and advises the City Council, Planning Commission, the Technical
Transportation Advisory Committee and other committees and commissions, developers and a variety of
community and stakeholder groups regarding transportation programs and directs all transportation planning,
traffic engineering, transit, parking and permitting activities.
Based upon the assumption that the Deputy Director would be able to return to work by January 2012, staff
implemented a temporary rotating workload coverage program in the interim. The current Parking Services
Manager, Transportation Operations Manager and the Principal Transportation Planner assumed rotating coverage
for this position, each for a three-week block of time. During these acting assignments, the managers served in
the Deputy Director capacity attending critical meetings and negotiations with transit, development review
agencies, planning committees and city departments. The acting roles also served to direct staff in the
implementation of policies, procedures and programs. This additional higher-level workload, on top of the
current workload of their positions, has proven to be an unsustainable long-term model.
Recently it has become clear that the Deputy Director will not be returning to work full-time as previously
anticipated. In response to this delayed return to work, and increasing transportation and development review
workload, programs and policies, staff recommends the approval of additional contract services to provide critical
program support during the absence of the Deputy Director.
D-50
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
DEPUTY DIRECTOR LEAVE COVERAGE
Staff is essentially proposing to continue rotating coverage for this absence with the Traffic Operations Manager,
Parking Service Manager and Principal Transportation Planner and backfill the shortages caused by this
methodology with contract services. This represents the most cost effective solution by utilizing existing staff for
higher cost functions and augmenting contracting services for lower cost functions.
Goal and Policy Links
1. Major City Goal-Preservation of Essential Services and Fiscal Health
2. Major City Goal-Traffic Congestion Relief
3. Major City Goal-Neighborhood Wellness Program
4. Other Important Council Objectives-Infrastructure Maintenance
5. City of San Luis Obispo Land Use and Circulation Element Updates
6. Other major policies and plans such as the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program, Traffic Safety
Report, Traffic Operations Report, Bicycle Transportation Plan and the Short Range Transit Improvement
Plan
Program Work Completed
Since the onset of leave for the Deputy Director of Public Works -Transportation, staff has assessed the
increasing time constraints with increasing complexities related to the enterprise funds, workload balance, and
constraints facing supervisors and managers. The Deputy Director of Public Works-Transportation position has
been back-filled on a rotating basis by the Parking Services Manager, Transportation Operations Manager and the
Principal Transportation Planner. These positions are being stretched beyond a level that is sustainable. Work
and projects will need to be significantly delayed if additional contract services and support are not provided.
Because the Deputy Director has been able to assist on a part time, but limited basis, the primary impact of his
absence has been project delays due to other staff assuming the Deputy Director duties and assignments. To
ensure that the City's highest priority projects remain on schedule, staff has identified the Deputy Director
workload they have now assumed and the following list of division projects and tasks that could be assisted by
contracting out these services.
Transportation Engineering: 170 Hours @ $180/Hr-Augment Contract Services by $30,000
The Traffic Operations Manager has been assigned 1/3 of the Deputy Director's management responsibilities for
the division including planning, organizing, overseeing, and reviewing all activities in the Transportation &
Development review division. In addition to management responsibilities a number of projects and programmatic
tasks previously assigned to the Deputy Director have been reassigned to the Traffic Operations Manager such as
acting as traffic engineering lead on the Land Use & Circulation Element update, Broad Street Corridor, Chevron
development and other such high priority development projects. In addition, such tasks as those associated with
the Los Osos Valley Road Interchange, MD2 development, Prado Road Connection, and implementation of
Neighborhood Wellness and Traffic Congestion Relief major city goals. The Traffic Operations manager has been
responsible for the liaison functions associated with these reassigned projects and programs including conferring
and advising City Council, Planning Commission, Technical Advisory Committees, developers and community
stakeholder groups.
The abrupt reassignment ofthese functions has had a significant impact on City Traffic Engineering services. The
eight tasks listed below represent the most critical impacts of these reassignments and the necessary hours of
additional contract services to backfill.
1. Traffic Citizen Request: Investigations & Studies -25 Hours
2. Prepare Grant Applications -20 Hours
3. CIP & DevRev Plan Checks-20 Hours
D-51
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
DEPUTY DIRECTOR LEAVE COVERAGE
4. Traffic Control Review-30 Hours
5. Laguna Village Shopping Center Monitoring-10 Hours
6. Speed Limit Updates -20 Hours
7. Fixilini NTM Studies-30 Hours
8. South & Parker Turn Restriction-15 Hours
Transportation Planning: 240 Hours @ $80/Hr-Augment Contract Services by $19,200
The Principal Transportation Planner has been assigned 1/3 of the Deputy Director's management responsibilities
for the division including planning, organizing, overseeing, and reviewing all activities in the Transportation &
Development Review division. Associated rotational duties include conferring and advising City Council,
Planning Commission, advisory bodies, developers and community stakeholder groups. In addition to
management responsibilities, a number of projects and programmatic tasks previously assigned to the Deputy
Director have been reassigned to the Principal Transportation Planner including the Los Osos Valley Road
interchange project, transportation planning lead on the Land Use & Circulation Element update, City
representative on SLOCOG's Technical Transportation Advisory Committee, and transportation planning lead on
the Traffic Congestion Relief major city goal.
The abrupt reassignment of these functions has had a significant impact on Transportation Planning services. The
two tasks listed below represent the most critical impacts of these reassignments and the necessary hours of
additional contract services to backfill.
1. Cal trans Planning grant implementation-160 Hours
2. Misc. transportation planning project assistance-80 Hours
Transit: 150 Hours @ $50/Hr-Augment Contract Services by $7.500
The Transit Services Manager is not currently a part of the Deputy Director rotation. However, the Transit
Services Manager has taken a lead role in presenting the City at SLOCOG meetings and hearings previously
handled by the Deputy Director. Additionally, Transit staff has assisted Transportation Planning by fulfilling
some of the duties of the Principal Transportation Planner. This assistance has had an impact on the ability for
Transit Services to provide website updates, detour notices, event assistance, bus stop, schedule and route
evaluations, and bus pass distribution. The two tasks listed below represent the most critical impacts of this
workload shift.
1. Website maintenance and bus schedule changes -110 Hours
2. Misc. Transit project assistance-40 Hours
• Transit event assistance-WOW, Farmers Market, Earth Day etc.
• Bus stop condition evaluation (tree trimming, graffiti, etc.)
• Posting of detour and rider alerts at bus stops
• Route evaluation check rides
• Restocking bus pass outlets (Albertsons, Chamber & Senior locations)
Parking: 120 Hours-Augment Contract Services by $22,400
The Parking Services Manager has been assigned 113 of the Deputy Director's management responsibilities for
the division including planning, organizing, overseeing, and reviewing all activities in the Transportation &
Development review division. In addition to management responsibilities a number of projects and programmatic
tasks previously assigned to the Deputy Director have been reassigned to the Parking Services Manager such as
the Public Works responsibilities for implementing the Neighborhood Wellness major city goal. Associated
rotational duties also include associated with these reassigned projects and programs including conferring and
advising City Council, Planning Commission, advisory bodies, developers and community stakeholder groups.
D-52
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
DEPUTY DIRECTOR LEAVE COVERAGE
The abrupt reassignment of these functions has had a significant impact on Parking Services. The three tasks
listed below represent the most critical impacts of these reassignments and the necessary hours of additional
contract services to backfill. The long term parking restriction issue that received Council direction on May 1,
2012 is not included within this list because Parking staffing impacts are unknown at this time.
1. Railroad Square lease agreement renewals-60 Hours @ $80/Hr
2. Railroad Square parking options -120 Hours @ $120/Hr
3. Misc. parking project assistance-40 Hours@ $80/Hr
Development Review: 80 Hours @ $75/Hr-Augment Contract Services by $6.000
The Development Review Supervising Civil Engineer is not currently a part of the Deputy Director rotation.
However, the Supervising Civil Engineer in the Development Review division is tasked with reviewing and
responding to development project proposals and inquiries at all stages of development. The Supervising Civil
Engineer is often asked about process questions, fees, and anticipated requirements before formal applications are
submitted. Currently, the division is reviewing Planning Division applications for impacts, mitigation measures,
and conditions, working drawings for building plan submittals and subdivision improvements. The Development
Review division relies heavily on the Deputy Director position to convey traffic engineering information needed
to anticipated application requirements for future developments, determine mitigation measures and correctly
answer process questions. During the Deputy Director absence, Development Review staff has needed to attend
these traffic/transportation committee meetings and workshops in order to have access to vital traffic information.
This assistance of the Supervising Civil Engineer in the Deputy Director's absence has had an impact on the
ability for the Development Review program to provide timely plancheck reviews, front counter assistance, and
development of conditions of approval, establishing fees and mitigation projects and overseeing the
implementation. The Development Review file management system is key in archiving correspondence,
direction, and prior decisions regarding development. It is important that the division has access to Traffic
Engineering Consultation in the absence of the Deputy Director.
The two tasks listed below represent the most critical impacts of this workload shift.
1. File Management Coordination ofDevelopment files and unsorted files-40 Hours
2. Traffic Engineering Consultation, Development Project and Plan Check Reviews-40 Hours
Environmental Review
No Environmental Review required.
Program Constraints and Limitations
The most significant constraint facing this request is the availability of funding, which if approved would not be
available until July 1, 2012; nine months after the Deputy Director first went out on leave. Due to the multi-
faceted nature of these work programs, it is difficult for staff to identify one contract or consultant for the majority
of this work. Staff will need to provide individual contract services and consultants for the significant variety of
program work.
Stakeholders
Stakeholders include the Public Works Department staff and the community for which these transportation,
transit, parking and development review services support.
D-53
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
DEPUTY DIRECTOR LEAVE COVERAGE
Implementation
Obtain approval from Council, advertise for contract services
Seek and award contracts for various .... ,.,..,,,.,_.t"
Key Program Assumptions
Funding approved for contract services.
Program Manager and Team Support
Program Manager. Director of Public Works
Project Team Parking Services Manager; Transportation Operations Manager; Principal Transportation Manager;
Deputy Director of Public Works; Transit Manager; Supervisor Civil Engineer; Administrative analyst.
Alternatives
1. Continue the Status Quo. The current situation is no longer considered sustainable, as projects are falling
behind. There is not enough capacity in the three rotating managers to provide backfill for one full time
Deputy Director position without lower level project & operations relief in each of the workgroups. Even
with so many tasks delegated throughout the department, it has become more difficult to accomplish all the
work required to adequately meet the department's complex fiscal and analytic needs. A significant reduction
in responsiveness and customer service would result with serious workload impacts on existing staff.
2. Defer or Re-Phase the Request. To defer this request for the 2013-15 Financial Plan would cause further
reduction in the level of services and programs provided to the community. It is unknown when the Deputy
Director will return from his leave. The interim rotating support staff model is unsustainable. A delay in
providing additional contract services to support the transportation and development review workload would
result in a reduction in responsiveness and customer service would result with serious workload impacts on
existing staff and significant delays and deferring of transportation-related programs and services.
3. Change the Scope of Request. Council could choose to provide contract services funding for only the highest
priority of projects. This alternative is not recommended because it would not make the best use of limited
City funds. In developing this request staff identified a number ofhigh priority City projects such as the Los
Osos Valley Road interchange project and the Land Use and Circulation Element Updates that would be
served by City staff expertise while consultants assist with other division duties.
4. Implementation in a Different Way. In lieu of contract services, the Council could direct the hiring of a
contract employee to take the place of the Deputy Director to provide support in-house on an interim basis.
An alternative of hiring a contract employee, full-time during 2012-13 would cost approximately $125,700 in
contract salary and benefits, and may be very difficult to obtain.
Operating Program
50100-Public Works Administration
D-54
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
DEPUTY DIRECTOR LEAVE COVERAGE
Cost Summary
The cost of contract salaries for a Deputy Director of Public Works would cost $85,100 for contract services in
2012-13.
D-55
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
CITY ATTORNEY OFFICE STAFFING
Request Summary
Providing coverage for the operational needs of the City Attorney's Office during the period of the Assistant City
Attorney's maternity leave will cost $25,300 in 2011-12 and $11,700 in 2012-13, for a total cost of$37,000.
Key Objectives
4. Maintaining legal services levels
5. Maintaining capacity to address emergent issues.
6. Preventing existing staff burnout.
Existing Situation: Factors Driving the Need for Change
The Assistant City Attorney (ACA) started maternity leave May 1, 2012. She is expected to return September 4,
2012. The ACA handles a high volume of regular and recurring legal operational requests from Council, staff,
and advisory bodies, and performs litigation, code enforcement, legal research, and issue management functions at
the direction of the City Attorney. The Assistant City Attorney also staffs the Planning Commission. Her leave
will create a significant deficit in the office's ability to perform and to deliver timely legal advice, document
review, meeting and project support, and work product. In order to prevent significant slow-downs in responses to
requests for legal advice and organizational support and to provide a legal advisor to the Planning Commission,
the office is requesting funding to obtain attorney coverage for the office during the term of the ACA's leave.
Goal and Policy Links
The City Attorney's office provides litigation support, legal advice, negotlatwn and document review and
preparation services to all City Departments to facilitate progress on Major City Goals and Other Important
Objectives, including: economic development; preservation of essential services and fiscal health; neighborhood
wellness; traffic congestion relief; open space preservation; planning; and affordable housing/homeless services.
Program Work Completed
The City Attorney has contacted two retired municipal/governmental agency attorneys and a current City
Attorney, each of whom are well qualified and willing to assist with coverage of the City Attorney's office on a
temporary basis. One attorney has agreed to begin work with the office on April 30, working 15-20 hours per
week, through the term of the ACA's leave. The other retired attorney is anticipated to be able to work 40 hours
per week, alternating weeks, beginning in early June. Another local City Attorney has agreed to provide Planning
Commission meeting and staff advisory coverage. In exploring alternatives for coverage several local firms
providing municipal services were contacted to explore availability and rates for temporary coverage. While there
are several qualified attorneys with those firms who expressed interest in providing services, the City Attorney
has determined that firm representation is cost prohibitive for regular operational needs, with rates ranging from
$165-$200/per hour depending on the type of engagement and the attorney assigned. The rates of the attorneys
with whom the office is currently negotiating range from $75-$150/hr.
Environmental Review
No environmental review required.
D-56
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
CITY ATTORNEY OFFICE STAFFING
Program Constraints and Limitations
One of the retired attorneys is a PERS retired annuitant, which constrains the number of hours worked with a
PERS agency. The other retired attorney does not wish to work more than 20 hours a week and has constraints on
her work days. The City Attorney has negotiated rates and hours within PERS parameters and will coordinate the
schedules of the two attorneys to address the operational needs of the office.
Even with this coordination, these temporary staff will not provide the level of continuity, responsiveness and
flexibility that is provided by the ACA. Moreover, the ACA often works more than 40 hours a week, so even
"full time" temporary assistance will not equate to the office operating at full capacity during the term of the
leave.
Stakeholders
The primary stakeholders impacted by the temporary staffing are City staff and elected and appointed officials.
We will be outreaching to all Departments to communicate office coverage and issue contact information during
the term of the leave. City Attorney will act as primary contact to assist in coordinating resources with
organizational needs.
Implementation
Task Date
I. Complete negotiations with PERS retiree attorney ( 40 hour alternating)
2. Complete contract with 15-20 hour attorney.
3. Complete negotiations and contract with Planning Commission coverage attorney
4. Council resolution making finding for PERS retiree employment
5. Complete contract with PERS retiree
6. PERS Retiree start date
Key Program Assumptions
April 20, 2012
April 30, 2012
May 21,2012
May 15,2012
May30, 2012
June 4, 2012
The request is based on the assumption that the ACA will not be gone for longer than anticipated and that the
office is able to complete negotiations and engagement of temporary staff within the $75-$150 hourly rate range.
Program Manager and Team Support
Program Manager. City Attorney
Project Team. Human Resources Director
Alternatives
1. Do not authorize temporary staffing funding or authorize at less than 40/hr per week coverage for the
office. Given current and anticipated workloads in the City Attorney's office, denial of the SOPC or approval
at a lesser level will result in significant delays in response time and work product production. If the request
is denied, the office will have no attorney coverage in the event of the illness or absence of the City Attorney.
D-57
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
CITY ATTORNEY OFFICE STAFFING
Operating Program
Legal Services
Cost Summary
D-58
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
OUTSIDE COUNSEL FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT
Request Summary
Retaining outside code enforcement counsel to support timely staff support and prosecution of code enforcement
cases in furtherance of the neighborhood wellness Major City Qoal will cost $25,000 beginning in 2012-13.
Key Objectives
1. Increasing timeliness and efficiency of code enforcement case development and prosecution.
2. Eliminating potential conflicts arising out of in-house City Attorney's office acting as both City prosecutor
and advisor to a legislative body.
Existing Situation: Factors Driving the Need for Change
The City currently engages in complaint driven code enforcement, which historically resulted in relatively few
resource intensive, complex code enforcement and prosecution cases being referred to the City Attorney. The
City recently hired new code enforcement personnel and the City Council adopted a proactive code enforcement
policy. Even prior to this policy change, the City Attorney's office has been seeing an increase in the complexity
of case referrals involving issues such as high occupancy and group home regulations and sleeping in vehicles
that are time intensive and present a high risk for litigation if the interplay between state and federal statutory and
constitutional rights and local code enforcement are not carefully navigated. With the implementation of the
proactive code enforcement policy, the City Attorney expects an increase in the volume and complexity of
contested and prosecuted cases.
Goal and Policy Links
1. Major City Goal-Neighborhood Wellness
Program Work Completed
The City Attorney's office has contacted local municipal firms and practitioners to assess the availability and
relative costs of code enforcement prosecution services. We have also made list serve inquiries regarding the
nature, scope and budgets of other jurisdictions code enforcement prosecution programs and obtained RFP's for
such services from other jurisdictions, including Malibu and Huntington Beach.
Environmental Review
No environmental review required.
Program Constraints and Limitations
Cost and availability of services are the two main constraints associated with contracting for this service. Local
firms and practitioners hourly rates range from $165-$200/hr. depending on the nature of the engagement.
Moreover there are a relatively small number of municipal code enforcement practitioners in the area. The City
Attorney's office would anticipate issuing an RFP for this service and reviewing proposals, with code
enforcement staff, to evaluate the most efficient and cost effective proposal, providing the greatest level of
flexibility for the City. It would be the City Attorney's intention to continue advice and support to staff on more
routine issues in house, while utilizing contract service for more time intensive or complicated cases or cases
likely headed toward prosecution or requiring special expertise.
D-59
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
OUTSIDE COUNSEL FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT
Stakeholders
The primary stakeholders will be code enforcement staff. However, community members subject to enforcement
action or prosecution will also be impacted by the prosecutorial approach.
Implementation
Task Date
1. Consult with Code Enforcement staff to develop and RFP
2. Issue RFP for services
3. Review proposals
4. Select contract counsel and execute contract
Key Program Assumptions
July 2012
July 2012
July 2012
Jul 2012
The request is based on the assumption that outside code enforcement/prosecution service demands would not
exceed 125-150 hours per year and that code enforcement counsel could be retained in the hourly rate range
quoted during preliminary discussions with local counsel. It is also assumed that the outside counsel engaged
would work cooperatively with the City Attorney's office, staff and the community in supporting the
neighborhood wellness goals in the most cost effective manner.
Program Manager and Team Support
Program Manager. City Attorney
Project Team. Community Development Director, Assistant City Attorney, Chief Building Official, Code
Enforcement Staff, Chief of Police and Police Department Staff.
Alternatives
Continue the Status Quo. The City Attorney's Office can continue to act as code enforcement legal advisor on
all matters and as City Prosecutor. Enforcement of complex or time intensive cases may be delayed as other time
sensitive and litigation issues present demands on the City Attorney's office. Alternatively, other non-litigation
internal legal service matters will be delayed to accommodate the dedication of resources to code enforcement
matters. If prosecution case loads increase significantly, timeliness of legal services and work product could be
significantly adversely impacted.
Operating Program
Legal services (15100)
Cost Summary
For significant cases, the retention of outside resources may facilitate a more proactive prosecutorial approach and
pursuit of resource intensive nuisance abatement actions, which can result in cost and attorney's fees recovery if
successful. Measure Y funds will be used for this purpose.
D-60
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
OUTSIDE COUNSEL FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT
D-61
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
UPGRADE BUSINESS TAX AND LICENSE SOFTWARE
Request Summary
Upgrading HdL, the City's business tax and license software, will cost $34,300 in 2012-13 and $5,000 annually
going forward.
Key Objectives
1. Ensure the stability of the City's revenue sources.
2. Improve business tax and license processing efficiency through streamlined data entry and more timely
communication between the public and the Finance and Community Development departments.
3. Improve customer service by allowing business owners to renew business licenses electronically rather than
in person or by mail.
Existing Situation: Factors Driving the Need for Change
As part the "Preservation of Essential Services and Fiscal Health" Major City Goal, the Finance staff has been
tasked with taking steps to preserve the City's existing revenue sources. This includes conducting ongoing
business tax and license audits and increasing enforcement efforts of businesses that do not comply with the
City's business tax and license codes. These ongoing efforts are expected to increase the number of business tax
and license certificates that the Finance Revenue Division must process each year. A business tax and license
enforcement of residential rental businesses in 2010 resulted in 1,500 new certificates. The number of business
tax and license certificates is expected to increase with each new enforcement effort.
Processing new certificates and certificate renewals is time consuming and requires a great deal of materials,
printing and postage costs. HdL Prime, the upgraded version of the City's business tax and license software,
contains features that will help to alleviate the additional time and cost associated with processing more business
tax and license certificates. For example, it allows City staff the ability to email renewal notices rather than
printing and mailing hard copies. It also includes numerous enhancements that facilitate more efficient data entry
and sharing of information across departments.
HdL Prime also includes a web module that allows business owners to renew business licenses online rather than
in person or by mail. The web module automatically calculates all fees and accepts credit card payments so that
all payments are sent to the City quickly and accurately. Currently the Revenue Division uses one full time
employee and one seasonal temporary employee to manually open renewal mail, input the data into HdL and
follow up with business owners on miscalculations and missing verification information. The web module will
eliminate this work for businesses that choose to renew online. It takes, on average, five minutes to process each
business license renewal that is received in the mail or in person. If just 1,000 of the City's 8,000 business
licenses are renewed online the Revenue Division will save approximately 80 hours in staff time.
Increased revenues resulting from ongoing audits and increased enforcement efforts have already been included in
the 2011-13 Financial Plan. All businesses pay the minimum business tax and license fee when they obtain their
initial business license and tax certificate. In the second year, they begin paying based upon their gross receipts.
This analysis assumes that in the second year of the Financial Plan, calculating the fees based on gross receipts
will generate more revenue than the minimum fee generates in the initial year of implementation.
D-62
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
UPGRADE BUSINESS TAX AND LICENSE SOFTWARE
Increased Annual New Revenue New Revenue
Description Activity Current Fee 2011-12 2012-13
Business License 735 $ 43 31,617 63,235
Business Tax 735 $ 25 18,382 36,765
Total Potential Revenue $ 50,000 $ 100,000
Goal and Policy Links
1. Major City Goal: Preservation of Essential Services and Fiscal Health
2. Municipal Code 3.01 Business Tax Certification
Program Work Completed
HdL has provided a pricing proposal for the upgrade.
Environmental Review
No environmental review required.
Program Constraints and Limitations
This project will involve approximately 120 hours Revenue staff time and 10 hours Information Technology staff
time. It will involve some collaboration between other departments.
Stakeholders
The citizens of the City will benefit from the City's fiscal health, and the business owners in the City will benefit
from the ease of electronic business tax and license renewal. The staff in the Finance and Community
Development departments will benefit from increased efficiencies.
Implementation
Task Date
1. Execute agreement with HdL
2. Project planning, data migration, training & outreach
3. Implement HdL Prime
September 2012
October 2012-March 2013
March2013
In order to realize the full potential efficiencies of the upgrade, the software must be implemented long enough
before the beginning of the business tax renewal period, June 2013, for staff to become proficient with the
software.
Key Program Assumptions
Costs are based on a vendor pricing proposal which expires July 15, 2012.
Program Manager and Team Support
Program Manager. Revenue Supervisor, Finance and Information Technology Department
D-63
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
UPGRADE BUSINESS TAX AND LICENSE SOFTWARE
Project Team. Revenue Division, Community Development Department, Information Technology
Alternatives
1. Do not upgrade or defer upgrade of the software at this time. Without the software upgrade and web module
capabilities of Hd.L Prime, staff may be unable to process the increasing number of business tax and license
certificates in a timely manner.
2. Change the scope of the request. This is not a scalable project.
Operating Program
Revenue Management
Cost Summary
Upgrading the business tax and license software will cost $31,300 in 2012-13: $30,000 for the software upgrade
and $1,300 for a prorated portion of the increased annual fee. The software upgrade will require $1,000 for a SQL
server license. Outreach to business owners to notify them of the electronic business license renewal option will
cost $1,000.
The software upgrade will cost $5,000 annually going forward. $4,000 represents the change in the annual cost
for the upgraded software. The City's current annual use fee will increase from $4,700 to $8,700. It is estimated
that the credit card fees for customers paying online will cost $1,000 per year.
100-25120-7227
D-64
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
CITY USER FEE STUDY
Request Summary
Providing funding for an analysis of the City's user fees and configuration of the updated fee structure in the
EnerGov system will cost $36,100 in 2012-13.
Key Objectives
1. Establish user fees for service in accordance with the City's existing processes.
2. Deliver fees that are commensurate with the services provided.
3. Allow staff to craft appropriate revenue projections.
Existing Situation: Factors Driving the Need for Change
Current City Budget and Financial Policies for User Fee Cost Recovery Goals recommend that fees be reviewed
and updated at least every five years to ensure that they keep pace with changes in the cost-of-living as well as in
methods or levels of service delivery. In implementing this policy, the City has adopted the strategy of
comprehensively analyzing service costs on a five year basis with interim adjustments annually based on changes
in the consumer price index. The last cost of services analysis was performed in 2006 and implemented in 2008.
NBS Government Financial Group (NBS), an independent firm serving local governments, recently completed a
full analysis of the City's building plan check and permitting fees. It was necessary to complete a study of these
fees at that time to ensure the results would be implemented with the new EnerGov land use and permitting
system. The next step is an analysis of the remaining user fees-Planning, Engineering Development Review,
Fire Prevention, Police, Utilities, Recreation, and General Government-to ensure they are set in accordance with
the City's user fee cost recovery policy and are recovered on a cost of services basis
Goal and Policy Links
1. Preservation of Essential Services and Fiscal Health Major City Goal
2. Budget and Financial Policies for User Fee Cost Recovery Goals
Program Work Completed
NBS has conducted a cost of services study for the City's Building and Safety Division and has provided a
proposal to conduct a full cost analysis of the City's remaining user fees.
EnerGov has provided a very broad estimate based of the work effort required to configure the results of the
building fee study in the system.
Environmental Review
No environmental reviews required.
Program Constraints and Limitations
1. This project will involve collaboration of staff from multiple departments and significant data collection for
the consultant.
2. As the study has not yet begun, the configuration cost associated with updating the fee structure in the
EnerGov system is only an estimate. Additionally, although the current rate for these services is $139 per
hour, it is not possible to lock this rate at this time.
D-65
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
CITY USER FEE STUDY
Stakeholders
The citizens of the City, as well as City staff, will benefit from user fees that accurately reflect the costs incurred
by the City to perform services. Outreach will be conducted with City residents and developers to communicate
the results of the study.
Implementation
The fee study will begin after the Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP) is reviewed and adopted by the
City Council in July 20I2.
Task Date
I. Execute contract with consultant
2. Conduct fee study
3. Conduct study session on fee analysis
4. Present fee structure recommendations to Council
5. 1m lement new fees structure in EnerGov s stem
Key Program Assumptions
I. Costs are based on vendor estimates.
July 2012
August-November 2012
January 2013
March2013
Ma 2013
2. The EDSP, which is currently in development, will provide a host of recommendations, one of which will
likely include an analysis of existing development review fees. The fee study will trail the EDSP analysis and
investigate and offer suggestions regarding any related recommendations. It will not cover Development
Impact Fees.
Program Manager and Team Support
Program Managers. Revenue Supervisor
Project Team. Staff from the Community Development, Public Works, Fire, Police, Parks and Recreation, and
Utilities departments.
Alternatives
1. Do not conduct the study at this time. Staff does not recommend this alternative because the last fee study was
conducted in 2006 and the current fee structure may not generate the intended cost recovery results.
2. Use in-house resources to conduct the study. Staff does not recommend this alternative as this would
consume considerable resources to conduct in-house. This would mean that basic day-to-day core services
would suffer as well as staffs ability to achieve other major goals and objectives. Additionally, it would take
longer to complete the analysis and there are significant credibility advantages in having the study prepared
by an independent, third party.
Operating Programs
Revenue Management (25I20)
D-66
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
CITY USER FEE STUDY
Cost Summary
The cost of the consultant services from NBS will not exceed $25,000. EnerGov has provided an estimate of 80
hours to complete configuration of the updated fee structure. The current rate for these services is $139 per hour,
which totals $11,120.
D-67
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
EMERGENCY GENERATOR PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE
Request Summary
Increasing contract services in the Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance division budget will cost $15,600
annually for emergency standby generator maintenance at various City locations.
Key Objectives
1. Provide adequate funding for generator preventative maintenance and contracted services.
2. Ensure budget has necessary funding to cover expenses.
3. Conduct annual maintenance on emergency equipment to avoid equipment deterioration and costly repairs.
4. Adherence to regulatory requirements.
Existing Situation: Factors Driving the Need for Change
The City currently owns and operates fifteen (15) emergency stand-by generators. These generators are located at
various locations through the City such as City Hall (1), 919 Palm Street Parking Structure (1), Corporation Yard
(1), Utilities (6-mobile), Police Station (1), South Hill (1) and Fire Stations 1-4 (4). Routine generator
maintenance is recommended whether the equipment is used for ongoing or emergency power as it must be
properly maintained to ensure proper operation and long-life.
As a result of budget restrictions, funding for generator maintenance was eliminated in 2009. Repairs to generator
engines only were provided on an as-needed basis by City Heavy Equipment Mechanics. As a result of
eliminating a preventative maintenance service contract, several emergency standby generators have recently
experienced failure of the computerized controller-units and costly repairs. In March, Fire Station 3 emergency
standby generator failed in the event of a power outage. The controller panel of the generator was faulty and
required immediate controller replacement by the manufacturer. This generator failure led to the inability of the
remaining Fire Stations 1, 2 and 4 to communicate with this portion of the City and therefore had an immediate
impact on the ability to respond to life and safety issues of the general public. This loss of radio communications,
typically supported by power provided by the emergency generator, had a direct impact on the community served,
as it resulted in a 16-hour period of communication loss with this portion of the City. Recent repairs to this one
generator have cost approximately $4,500 to date.
A Preventative Maintenance program for all City-owned emergency standby generators would ensure that the
generators will work effectively in the event of a power outage or emergency situation. When the emergency
generator equipment is serviced and maintained on a regular basis, equipment deficiencies can be identified and
repairs made prior to an emergency situation. Contracted preventative maintenance will provide insight into
potential problems and verify the component's electrical and mechanical integrity in the actual mechanical
transfer operation.
The City's Heavy Equipment Mechanics will assist in emergency stand-by generator maintenance by servicing
and repairing the main engine parts, such as spark plugs, ignition condensers, timing belts, servicing engine
cooling systems, fuel levels, repairing hose leaks, filters and batteries. However, the computer controller units for
the generators have increasingly sophisticated technology and the City does not have the equipment, nor trained
staff, to adequately service, maintain or repair this computerized portion of the emergency standby generators.
Therefore, the main responsibilities of the maintenance contractor would be to inspect the computer systems,
study the technical data provided by the manufacturers, maintain records and take precautionary measures for
safety as suggested by the manufacturers.
D-68
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
EMERGENCY GENERATOR PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE
Some of the steps taken to ensure smooth generator operation while carrying out scheduled maintenance would
include:
• Load bank testing
• Verifying control panel readings and indicators
• Commutator and slip ring inspections
• Automatic transfer switch inspections
• Signal continuity
• Utility phase sensing
Goal and Policy Links
Preservation of Essential Services and Fiscal Health
Program Work Completed
Contacting regulatory agencies and contractors to determine contract fees for 2012-13.
Environmental Review
No environmental review required.
Program Constraints and Limitations
The contract amounts for 2012-13 are based on information received in March 2012.
Stakeholders
City Hall, Police Department, Utilities Department, Finance and IT, and Fire Department personnel at these
locations and the public who benefits from the services provided by these departments.
Implementation
Staff will seek proposals from several vendors providing emergency generator preventative maintenance and
repair service at various locations.
Staff will select the most qualified vendor and enter into a service agreement for emergency standby generator
maintenance at various locations throughout the City.
Seek Proposals for generator maintenance
Service for Generator Maintenance
Key Program Assumptions
That contract information received in March 2012 will not change during 2012-13.
D-69
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
EMERGENCY GENERA TOR PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE
Program Manager and Team Support
Program Manager. Administrative Analyst
Project Team. Fleet Services Supervisor, Public Works Director, Fire Department Administrative Analyst
Alternatives
1. Continue the Status Quo. Denial of this request and continuing with status quo would cause the contract
services account to be overspent in 2012-13 and beyond. The Department has already reviewed contract
services and made reductions where possible for 2011-12.
2. Implementation in a Different Way.
Training
Currently, Fleet Services staff are not trained at a level to adequately service and repair the electrical interface
and controller-units of the emergency stand-by generators. Additionally, the Fleet Services division does not
have the appropriate equipment to perform load-bank testing and verify control panel reading and indicators.
In lieu of a preventative maintenance contract, the Fleet Services division could train existing staff for this
type of electrical maintenance and purchase the necessary load banking equipment. Staff does not have the
training funding currently available to support this option. This alternative would require additional training
funding. Staff estimates the cost of training, on-going staff certification and assessment tools to cost
approximately $12,000 annually.
Comprehensive Contract Services
Staff is currently recommending a service contract for only the electrical interface preventative maintenance
and repairs with the assumption that Fleet Services staff would assume the responsibilities of maintaining and
repairing the motor portion of the emergency standby generators. However, the annual servicing and related
parts costs could be assumed by contract services. Staff solicited proposals from local vendors to include the
annual motor servicing of the emergency standby generators (a function currently assigned to Fleet Services
staff) in addition to the electrical interface maintenance. The cost of providing a comprehensive service
contract for the City's emergency standby generators to include both the electrical interface and motor
servicing and parts would cost approximately $27,000 annually; or an additional $11,400. The cost of
providing this work in-house is estimated at $4,200 in salary, benefits and parts. Fleet Mechanics are
expected to utilize 45 hours of staff time to provide this service in-house.
3. Change the Scope of Request. The City could reduce this scope of the preventative maintenance program of
the fifteen (15) City-owned emergency standby generators from three times annually to a lesser frequency.
Even with a reduction in maintenance frequency, load-testing for the generators are required annually at a cost
of $680 each. The cost of one (1) preventative maintenance service inspection annually and load testing for
each of the fifteen generators would cost approximately $12,200, resulting in a $3,300 annual savings.
However, staff recommends increased intervals of preventative maintenance and testing due to the
sophisticated electrical control panels on these units. The City will require dependable stand-by generators in
the event of an emergency.
Operating Program
50340 -Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance (Fleet)
D-70
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
EMERGENCY GENERATOR PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE
Cost Summary
An electrical preventative maintenance program for emergency standby generator maintenance will cost
approximately $15,600 annually for the Fleet division contract services. This cost assumes that the fifteen (15)
City-owned emergency generators will be serviced (3x) times annually. This service shall include load bank
testing, verifying control panel readings and indicators, inspecting commutator, slip rings and automatic transfer
switches. Inspections shall also include checking of signal continuity and utility phase sensing.
D-71
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
OVERTIME AND CALLBACK PAY
Request Summary
The cost of providing overtime and callback pay for the Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance division in support
of unexpected maintenance and repairs of Fire Department apparatus and equipment will cost $7,500 annually.
Key Objectives
1. Provide adequate funding for overtime duty and callback requirements.
2. Ensure Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance program has necessary funding to cover expenses.
3. Adherence to requirements for standby and callback.
4. Maximize productivity in the Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance division by enabling callback and
overtime pay for personnel assigned to repair and maintain Fire Department apparatus and equipment.
5. Maintain high level of customer service and quick response times to repairs of Fire vehicles, apparatus and
equipment.
6. Ensure consistent support for critical equipment and fleet.
Existing Situation: Factors Driving the Need for Change
Background
As part of the 2011-12 Mid-Year budget process, the San Luis Obispo Fire Department sought City Manager and
Council approval for a staffing restructure of the Fire Department. This request for restructuring comes as a result
of independent recommendations provided as part of the Fire Department Master Plan, Fleet Study and the Public
Works Department Organizational Assessment.
Assessment recommendations 72 and 73, regarding the Fleet Maintenance division, recommend the transfer of
fire apparatus maintenance responsibility from the Fire Department to the Fleet Services division in Public Works
and the reclassification of the Fire Vehicle Mechanic to a Heavy Equipment Mechanic.
Recommendation 72 -"Public Works Department and the Fire Department to transition the
responsibility of fire apparatus maintenance to the Fleet Services division including the transferring
the Fire Vehicle Mechanic position. "
Recommendation 73 -"When the Fire Vehicle Mechanic position becomes vacant, the position
should be reclassified as Heavy Equipment Mechanic."
Consolidation of fleet management functions into one centralized service organization was identified by the
consultant (as well as in a previous Fleet Study done in 2007) as a best management practice for fleet services.
Fire and Public Works Department staff agreed with the recommendations of the consultant and previous Fleet
study and recognized this as the appropriate time to make these changes.
The Fire Department has requested the revision of the Fire Vehicle Mechanic job description and transfer of this
position as part of the Department's overall staffing restructuring efforts (City Manager Report dated December
21, 2011). The Fire Department staffing reorganization is consistent with recommendations from the Fire Master
Plan and provides the Department with an opportunity to increase and maximize operational efficiencies.
Overtime and Call-back
The savings received from the Fire Vehicle Mechanic revision are slated to be used by the Fire Department to
help offset costs incurred by the creation of a Deputy Chief position. Some of the salary and benefit savings
associated with the Fire Department reorganization are derived from standby duty, callback pay and overtime
funding for the Fire Vehicle Mechanic position. Overtime and callback pay is requested by the Fire Department
in effort to maintain and repair critical life and safety equipment necessary to sustain department operations in the
D-72
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
OVERTIME AND CALLBACK PAY
event of an emergency. With a limited emergency response fleet, specialized equipment and mandated
emergency response times, repairs to fire vehicles, apparatus and equipment must be made in a timely manner.
Prior to assuming the responsibility of the newly revised Fire Vehicle Mechanic position and Fire Department
apparatus and equipment, the Fleet Maintenance division did not require its mechanics to participate in a callback
program nor does the Fleet Services program have an operating budget to support overtime pay. Vehicle and
Equipment Maintenance does not participate in standby duty/callback programs because equipment maintenance
and repairs of the City's general fleet do not align with priority life, safety and emergency response concerns.
However, the newly transferred and revised Fire Vehicle Mechanic is requested by the Fire Department, and as
part of the service level agreement, to provide callback and overtime support for Fire Department apparatus and
equipment.
Callback is defined as those circumstances which require an employee to unexpectedly return to work after the
employee has left work at the end of the employee's work shift or workweek. For return to work as part of a
callback agreement, the City shall guarantee a minimum of four (4) hours pay at time and one-half for time
actually worked.
Based upon historical overtime needs for the Fire Department, staff recommends an allocation of $7,500 be
approved to support overtime callback pay for the Fleet Services operating program. This funding request is
based upon a mid-range mechanic salary at time and one-half pay for an overtime average of sixteen hours per
month.
Goal and Policy Links
1. Major City Goal, 20011-13 Preservation of Essential Services and Fiscal Health
2. San Luis Obispo City Employee's Association Memorandum of Agreement, Article 8 and Article 9
3. Fleet Study 2007
4. Fire Department Master Plan 2009
5. Public Works Department Organizational Assessment, 2010
Program Work Completed
In preparation for this reorganization and transfer of Fire fleet responsibility, Fire and Public Works staff has
worked collaboratively with Human Resources in the revision of the Fire Vehicle Mechanic and Heavy
Equipment Mechanic job descriptions to include general City Fleet requirements, specific Fire Department work,
and consistency in education and training for the positions.
Staff has also worked on a tentative Service Level Agreement which defines the services as well as the level of
fiscal support associated with the transfer of this position from the Fire Department to the Public Works
Department. Funding for callback and overtime pay are not included in the Service Level Agreement.
The City is required to meet and confer over any identified impacts of reorganizations or reclassifications. The
City has satisfied this obligation.
Environmental Review
No environmental review required.
D-73
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
OVERTIME AND CALLBACK PAY
Program Constraints and Limitations
Limited financial resources.
Stakeholders
The current Heavy Equipment Mechanic positions required to participate in callback duty will be affected by this
program. These positions will be required to respond to Fire Department apparatus and equipment repairs
consistent with life and safety operations.
Ultimately, San Luis Obispo community citizens will be the ultimately stakeholders in the program as the
recipients of emergency life and safety efforts. Ensuring fire department apparatus and equipment are in working
order and available in the event of an emergency.
Implementation
Authorization of annual overtime and callback pay will be included as part of funding augmentations related to
the 2012-13 Budget Supplement. Annual funding for overtime and callback will be provided for the Vehicle and
Equipment Maintenance program (50340) effective July 1, 2012.
Key Program Assumptions
1. The staff workloads in Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance division will continue at current levels.
2. Fire Department will continue to require overtime and callback response for mechanics supporting Fire
Department apparatus and equipment.
3. Funding is available to support this request.
Program Manager and Team Support
Program Manager. Fleet Services Supervisor
Project Team. Public Works Director, Fire Chief, Public Works Analyst, Fire Department Analyst, Human
Resources Analyst
Alternatives
1. Continue the Status Quo. Continue as status-quo would require Heavy Equipment Mechanics to participate
in the callback program in support of Fire Department apparatus and equipment without additional
compensation. Staff does not recommend this option as it is not consistent with the SLOCEA MOA Article 8
and Article 9 which define the nature and scope of callback duty and appropriate compensation.
2. Change the Scope of Request. Funding for the Fire Vehicle Mechanic has been historically budgeted
through the Fire Department program in support of that position. With the recommended Fire Department
reorganization, funding for the Fire Vehicle Mechanic standby, callback and overtime are being used by the
Fire Department as part of the larger reorganizational savings. Council could direct the Fire Department to
provide the previously budgeted amounts for standby, callback and overtime to the Vehicle and Equipment
D-74
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
OVERTIME AND CALLBACK PAY
Maintenance division in support of the newly reclassified Heavy Equipment Mechanic (formerly Fire Vehicle
Mechanic) position. This alternative would mean less anticipated salary and benefits savings for the Fire
Department reorganization, and off-setting of costs for the new Deputy Chief position.
Operating Program
50340-Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance (Fleet)
Cost Summary
The City shall compensate employees who are required to return to work unexpectedly with a minimum callback
pay of four (4) hours pay at time and one-half or time actually worked, whichever is larger. Based on past
experience of the former Fire Vehicle Mechanic, staff anticipates callback minimums to cost approximately
$1 ,000 annually with an average of sixteen overtime hours monthly for $6,500.
50340-7034
D-75
Section E
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
OVERVIEW
INTRODUCTION
All of the City's construction projects and
equipment purchases costing $15,000 or more are
included in the Capital Improvement Plan. (Minor
capital outlays costing less than $15,000 are
included with the operating program budgets.)
Through the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), the
City systematically plans, schedules and finances
capital projects to ensure cost-effectiveness and
conformance with established polices.
Comprehensive policies governing the development
and management of the CIP are set forth in the
Policies and Objectives section of the Financial Plan
(capital improvement management; capital financing
and debt management).
The CIP is a five year plan organized into the same
six functional groupings used for the operating
programs:
1. Public Safety
2. Public Utilities
3. Transportation
4. Leisure, Cultural & Social Services
5. Community Development
6. General Government
The CIP section of the "parent" 2011-13 Financial
Plan is composed of six parts:
1. Overview introducing the CIP and describing
project types, phases and financing.
2. Summary of CIP expenditures by function and
operation.
3. Summary of CIP expenditures by funding
source.
4. Listing of all CIP projects by function providing
the project title, phase (study, environmental
review, design, real property acquisitions, site
preparation, construction, construction
management and equipment acquisitions),
project cost and schedule.
E-1
5. Listing of all CIP projects by funding source.
6. Project description summaries.
APPENDIX B: CIP PROJECTS
2011-16 CIP Project Detail. The CIP information
provided in the "parent" 2011-13 Financial Plan is
based on the project detail provided in Appendix B:
Capital Improvement Plan Projects.
In addition to summary information, Appendix B
includes the following for each CIP project:
• Function
• Request title
• CIP project description
• Link to Council Goals and/or Measure Y
• Need and urgency
• Readiness to build
• Environmental review and permits required
• Operating program related to the request
• Project phasing and funding sources
• Details of ongoing costs
• Alternatives
• Project manager and team support
• Site list (if applicable)
• Location map/schematic design (if applicable)
Also included in Appendix B is summary
documentation for CIP projects proposed for 2013-
16.
FINANCIAL PLAN SUPPLEMENT
The following schedules have been included in this
document as a supplement to the 2011-13 Financial
Plan CIP:
1. Summary of CIP expenditures by function
2. Summary of CIP expenditures by funding source
3. Summary of CIP changes
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
SUMMARY OF CIP EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTION
I PUBLIC SAFETY
Police Protection
Fire & Environmental Safety
Total Public Safety
I PUBLIC UTILITIES
Water Services
Wastewater Services
Whale Rock Reservoir
Total Public Utilities
I TRANSPORTATION
Streets
Pedestrian & Bicycle Paths
Creek & Flood Protection
Parking
Transit
Transportation Management
Total Transportation
2011-13 Financial Plan
2011-12
508,900
107,800
616,700
2,817,600
7,486,400
608,400
10,912,400
16,444,000
387,500
719,000
2,136,900
1,782,700
284,100
21,754,200
2012-13
230,000
235,800
465,800
200,000
970,000
1,170,000
1,895,800
407,500
730,000
195,000
25,000
3,253,300
I LEISURE, CULTURAL & SOCIAL SERVICES
Parks & Recreation 2,348,600 765,800
Total Leisure, Cultural &
Social Services 2,348,600 765,800
I COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Natural Resource Protection 884,400 22,500
Housing 2,020,500
Construction Regulation
Total Community Development 2,904,900 22,500
I GENERAL GOV~RNMENT
Information Technology 642,400 25,000
Buildings 111,800 151,500
Fleet Management 109,900
Total General Government 864,100 176,500
TOTAL $39,400,900 $5,853,900
E-2
Proposed
2013-14
156,500
69,000
225,500
2,082,300
6,886,500
8,968,800
2,411,100
1,249,000
1,337,000
174,500
1,104,300
812,000
7,087,900
471,100
471,100
300,000
300,000
675,000
165,200
840,200
$17,893,500
Proposed
2014-15
1,291,600
121,000
1,412,600
1,957,000
64,440,200
66,397,200
7,613,600
160,000
532,000
572,500
17,845,000
26,723,100
776,400
776,400
300,000
50,200
350,200
627,100
114,500
741,600
$96,401,100
Proposed
2015-16
648,500
105,500
754,000
2,137,400
4,755,500
89,700
6,982,600
2,452,400
465,000
2,248,000
483,600
123,000
5,772,000
949,700
949,700
300,000
96,100
396,100
27,100
95,400
77,400
199,900
$15,054,300
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
SUMMARY OF CIP EXPENDITURES BY FUNDING SOURCE
2011-13 Financial Plan
2011-12 2012-13
I CAPITAL OUTLAy FUND
General Fund 9,963,600 3,250,900
Federal & State Grants 3,553,200 320,000
Total Capital Outlay Fund 13,516,800 3,570,900
I COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUND
Federal Grants 1,275,800 329,300
I LAw ENFORCEMENT GRANT FUNDS
Federal & State Grants 26,200
I PUBLIC ART PRIVATE SECTOR FUND
Public Art In-lieu Fees 234,400
I PARKLAND DEVELOPMENT FUND
Park In-lieu Fees 1,481,800
Federal & State Grants 67,100
Other Sources
Total Parkland Development Fund 1,548,900
I TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE FUND
Transportation Impact Fees 3,296,800 25,000
Federal & State Grants 2,371,700 250,000
Other Sources
Total Transportation Impact Fee Fu 5,668,500 275,000
I OPEN SPACE PROTECTION FUND
General Fund 250,300 22,500
Grants 563,200
Total 813,500 22,500
I AIRPORT AREA IMP ACT FEE FUND
Impact Fees 355,600
E-3
Proposed
2013-14
4,027,200
1,682,800
5,710,000
105,000
73,000
1,004,000
1,077,000
75,000
225,000
300,000
Proposed
2014-15
4,143,900
5,945,900
10,089,800
105,000
25,000
13,800,000
4,000,000
17,825,000
75,000
225,000
300,000
Proposed
2015-16
4,916,600
885,000
5,801,600
105,000
73,000
73,000
75,000
225,000
300,000
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
SUMJ'vfARY OF CIP EXPENDITURES BY FUNDING SOURCE
2011-13 Financial Plan
2011-12 2012-13
I LOVR SUB-AREA IMP ACT FEE FUND
Transportation Impact Fees 236,400
I AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND
In-lieu fees 744,700
I FLEET REPLACEMENT FUND
General Fund 148,100 291,200
I ENTERPRISE AND AGENCY FUNDS
Water Fund 2,817,600 200,000
Sewer Fund 7,486,400 970,000
Parking Fund 2,136,900 195,000
Transit Fund 1,782,700
Whale Rock Fund 608,400
Total Enterprise and Agency Funds 14,832,000 1,365,000
TOTAL $39,400,900 $5,853,900
E-4
Proposed
2013-14
48,600
371,200
2,128,300
6,907,000
182,600
1,112,400
10,330,300
$17,893,500
Proposed
2014-15
24,700
1,042,100
1,974,000
64,473,700
9,500
582,000
67,039,200
$96,401,100
Proposed
2015-16
1,308,500
2,137,400
4,755,500
483,600
89,700
7,466,200
$15,054,300
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
SUMMARY OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN CHANGES
2012-13
Leisure, Cultural & Social Services
Building Maintenance • Ludwick Community Center Gymnasium Reroof 21,500
21,500
E-5
LEISURE, CULTURAL & SOCIAL SERVICES
LUDWICK COMMUNITY CENTER GYMNASIUM REROOF
CIP Project Summary
Reroofing the gymnasium section of the Ludwick Community Center building will cost $21,500 in fiscal year
2012-13.
~ Maintenance/Replacement D New project D Fleet Replacement D New Fleet Request
IRI Council Goal I Measure Y Priority -List: Infrastructure Maintenance
Need and Urgency
This section of the Ludwick Community Center building, located at 895 Santa Rosa Street, was last reroofed in
1988 with a 25-year life expectancy. In 2012-13, the roof will have met its 25-year life expectancy and it has
already been showing signs of needing replacement with the development of roof leaks over the past few years.
At the first signs of leaks standard repairs were applied which controlled the worst of the leaks, protecting
moisture from collecting on the wood gymnasium flooring.
This project was brought forward as part of the 5-year capital replacement program, 2011-13 Financial Plan,
Appendix B, page 3-307. Design for the Ludwick Center roof replacement was scheduled for 2014-15 and
construction in 20 15-16. However, the most recent rains show the roof has further deteriorated beyond standard
repairs and the area with the most significant damage must now be replaced. To continue attempting to patch or
repair the many of the roof leaks is not practical. Further deferment of the roof replacement for the gymnasium
section of the building could cause more significant internal damage to the building and will continue to drain
available staff time and program financial resources. If this section of the roof is not replaced in a timely manner,
internal damage will continue to accelerate and greatly increase repair costs in the future and may cause moisture
related problems within the building.
Due to the on-going problems with this entire roof (meeting rooms, child care area, computer training room, craft
room, storage areas, and the gymnasium) it was identified for a complete replacement during the creation of the
2011-13 budget process. Taking on-going repair efforts and current fiscal constraints into consideration, it was
hoped that this project could be successfully deferred until the later years of the 5-year Financial Planning
forecast. However, this past rainy season has shown that degradation of the oldest section of the roof (the
gymnasium area) has advanced to where further deferment will result in significantly more water damage to the
building which in turn will increase the eventual repair costs. Staff recommends accelerating a portion of the
Ludwick Community Center roof replacement project to the 2012-13 fiscal year to support the roof replacement
of the gymnasium section of the building.
Readiness to Build
~ Study complete or D n/a
D Equipment purchased or D n/a
~ Property owned or property agreement in place
D Environmental approval and permits complete or D n/a
~ Specifications or construction documents complete
Environmental Review and Permits Required
D Environmental Review
~ Building Permit
E-6
LEISURE, CULTURAL & SOCIAL SERVICES
LUDWICK COMMUNITY CENTER GYMNASIUM REROOF
D Waterway Permits (Fish & Game, Water Quality, Anny Corps)
D Railroad
D Other:
Operating Program Number and Title:
50230 Building Maintenance
Project Phasing and Funding Sources
p . c b Ph rOJ!!Ct osts 'Y ase
Budget-to-Date 2011-12 2012-13
Design
Construction-gymnasium 21,500
Construction -remaining roof
Construction Management
Total --21,500
P . tR d" b S roJeC un mg 'Y ource
Project Costs
2013-14
-
Project Funding Sources
Budget-to-Date 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
General Fund 21,500
Total --21,500 -
Reduced I Enhanced Project Alternatives
2014-15 2015-16
7,900
57,400
7,900 57,400
2014-15 2015-16
7,900 57,400
7,900 57,400
This is a phase repair as only the gym section of the roof is proposed for replacement. Further phasing is not
practical.
Project Team
Assignment Program Estimated Hours
Coordinate and inspect Building Maintenance 25-30
Project Effect on the Operating Budget
The Building Maintenance Supervisor and a Building Maintenance Technician will each spend several hours to
facilitate this project with minimal to no effect on the CIP Engineering team or the programing within the
building. This is a fairly straight forward maintenance project, and extensive design and/or construction
management does not appear to be warranted. Staff has consulted and met on-site with Dennis Delby of
Architectural Design Group on scope of work and minimal specifications which have been provided, and with
Denis Rademacher of Wicks Roofing on project pricing.
E-7
Total
7,900
21,500
57,400
86,800
Total
86,800
86,800
LEISURE, CULTURAL & SOCIAL SERVICES
LUDWICK COMMUNITY CENTER GYMNASIUM REROOF
The pricing provided includes removal of the old roof, the installation of a new felt and shingle roof, and a
reasonable contingency level to address the nature of the project. The contingency level is based on the type of
project faced, i.e. the roof has leaked for years, there may be rot repairs needed, and delay during the project to
secure additional funding increases the time the building is open to rain damage. Due to the internal acoustic tiles
installed on the ceiling of the gym during the 2002 remodel, and until the old roof is removed, the existence
and/or extent of any needed sub-roof repairs is not determinable.
The project in and of itself will neither increase nor decrease current operating costs. It will: stop further internal
damage to the building therefore minimizing future repair costs, eliminate the liability issues associated with a
repeatedly wet floor, eliminate potential for moisture related indoor air quality problems, and will allow the
Building Maintenance Division to shift existing staffing and financial resources now being expended on cleanup
and control back to more useful repair tasks.
E-8
Section F
DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS
DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS
INTRODUCTION
This section summarizes the debt service obligations
of the City as of July 1, 2012. These obligations
represent the City's annual installment payments of
principal and interest for previous capital
improvement plan projects or acquisitions funded
through debt financings.
The City's debt management policies are
comprehensively discussed in Section B (Capital
Financing and Debt Management) of the 2011-13
Financial Plan.
This section includes:
• Descriptions of each lease or bond obligation
existing at July 1, 2012
• Summary of debt service by function
• Summary of debt service by source
• Computation of the City's legal debt margin
F-1
DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS
DESCRIPTION OF DEBT OBLIGATIONS
1986 Lease Revenue Bonds
Refunded in 1994 and 2004
• Purpose: Construct parking structures (net
proceeds: $5,758,400); make road improvements
and purchase facilities (net proceeds:
$4,450,000).
• Maturity Date: 2014
• Original Principal Amount: $13,970,000
• July 1, 2012 Principal Outstanding: $1,509,900
• Interest Rate: 2.0% to 3.5%
• Funding Source: General and Parking Funds
1992 State Clean Water Revolving Fund Loan
• Purpose: Upgrade the City's water reclamation
plant and collection system to meet discharge
standards.
• Maturity Date: 2012
• Original Principal Amount: $31,227,400
• July 1, 2012 Principal Outstanding: $1,828,900
• Interest Rate: 3.00% to 3.20%
• Funding Source: Sewer Fund
1993 Water Revenue Bonds
Refunded in 2002 and 2012
• Purpose: Upgrade the City's water treatment
plant to meet water quality standards.
• Maturity Date: 2023
• Original Principal Amount: $10,890,000
• July 1, 2012 Principal Outstanding: $4,960,000
• Interest Rate: 2.0% to 4.0%
• Funding Source: Water Fund
F-2
1996 Lease Revenue Bonds
Refunded in 2005
• Purpose: Construct a new headquarters fire
station and other City acquisitions.
• Maturity Date: 2026
• Original Principal Amount: $7,100,000
• July 1, 2012 Principal Outstanding: $4,940,000
• Interest Rate: 3.4% to 4.5%
• Funding Source: General Fund
1999 Series C Lease Revenue Bonds
Refunded in 2001: Series C Lease Revenue Bonds
Refunded in 2012
• Purpose: Purchase property and build athletic
fields; purchase property for police station
expansion; purchase Downtown Plan properties
• Maturity Date: 2029
• Original Principal Amount: $6,745,000
• July 1, 2012 Principal Outstanding: $5,050,000
• Interest Rate: 2.0% to 4.0%
• Funding Source: General Fund
2001 State Infrastructure Bank (CIEDB) Loan
• Purpose: Expand Marsh Street parking structure
• Maturity Date: 2031
• Original Principal Amount: $7,765,900
• July 1, 2012 Principal Outstanding: $6,035,200
• Interest Rate: 3.37% (including annual loan fees)
• Funding Source: Parking Fund
2003 Lease Purchase Financing
• Purpose: Construct energy conservation
improvements at various City locations.
• Maturity Date: 2013
• Original Principal Amount: $3,023,100
• July 1, 2011 Principal Outstanding: $358,300
• Interest Rate: 3.6%
• Funding Source: General, Water and Sewer
Funds
DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS
DESCRIPTION OF DEBT OBLIGATIONS
2005 Water Resources Control Board Loan
• Purpose: Construct water reuse project.
• Maturity Date: 2024
• Authorized Principal Amount: $8,883,200
• July 1, 2012 Principal Outstanding: $5,771,200
• Interest Rate: 2.5%
• Funding Source: Water Fund
2006 Lease Revenue Bonds
• Purpose: Parking Structure and City Offices
• Maturity Date: 2036
• Original Amount: $16,160,000
• July 1, 2012 Principal Outstanding:
$14,375,000
• Interest Rate: 4.0% to 4.7%
• Funding Source: General and Parking Funds
2006 Water Revenue Bonds
• Purpose: Water Treatment Plant Improvements
• Maturity Date: 2036
• Original Amount: $16,905,000
• July 1, 2012 Principal Outstanding:
$15,000,000
• Interest Rate: 3.75% to 4.625%
• Funding Source: Water Funds
2008 Installment Sale Agreement
• Purpose: Tank Farm Lift Station and Force Main
Project
• Maturity Date: 2023
• Original Amount: $2,050,000
• July 1, 2012 Principal Outstanding: $1,735,000
• Interest Rate: 4.2%
• Funding Source: Sewer Funds
2008 State Infrastructure Bank (CIEDB) Loan
• Purpose: Tank Farm Lift Station and Force Main
Project
• Maturity Date: 2038
• Original Principal Amount: $10,000,000
• July 1, 2012 Principal Outstanding: $9,341,000
• Interest Rate: 3.25% (including annual loan fees)
• Funding Source: Sewer Fund
F-3
2009 Lease Revenue Bonds
• Purpose: Public Safety Communications and
Emergency Operations Center
• Maturity Date: 2039
• Original Amount: $10,705,000
• July 1, 2012 Principal Outstanding: $9,210,100
• Interest Rate: 3.00% to 5.75%
• Funding Source: General, Water, Sewer, Parking
Funds
2010 Fire Engine/Truck Lease Financing
• Purpose: Purchase of fire apparatus with 100-
foot ladder
• Maturity Date: 2020
• Original Amount: $1,080,000
• July 1, 2012 Principal Outstanding: $900,000
• Interest Rate: 2.99%
• Funding Source: General Fund
DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS
ANNUALPAYMENTSBYFUNCTION
Actual Budget 2011-13 Financial Plan
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
PUBLIC SAFETY
Police Protection 461,100 450,800 465,300 461,400
Fire & Environmental Safety 487,400 615,100 557,200 541,700
Total Public Safety 948,500 1,065,900 1,022,500 1,003,100
PUBLIC UTILITIES
Water Service 2,377,600 2,429,800 2,343,800 2,187,600
Wastewater Service 3,191,600 3,256,000 3,245,000 2,995,000
Total Public Utilities 5,569,200 5,685,800 5,588,800 5,182,600
TRANSPORTATION
Streets 363,200 295,000 362,500 360,900
Parking 1,522,000 1,531,300 1,527,800 1,525,600
Total Transportation 1,885,200 1,826,300 1,890,300 1,886,500
LEISURE, CULTURAL & SOCIAL SERVICES
Parks & Recreation 962,500 968,800 716,600 674,500
Total Leisure, Cultural & Social Services 962,500 968,800 716,600 674,500
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Information Technology 70,100 67,900 67,900 67,500
Buildings 564,400 496,000 535,700 531,500
Total General Government 634,500 563,900 603,600 599,000
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS $9,999,900 $10,110,700 $9,821,800 $9,345,700
F-4
DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS
ANNUALPAYMENTSBYSOURCE
GENERAL FUND
2001 Revenue Refunding Bonds Series B & C
Principal
Interest
2004/1994 Refunding Lease Revenue Bonds
Principal
Interest
2005/1996 Lease Revenue Bonds
Principal
Interest
2006 Lease Revenue Bonds-919 Palm Street
Principal
Interest
2009 Lease Revenue Bonds -Public Safety EOC
Principal
Interest
2012 Refunding Lease Revenue Bonds
Principal
Interest
Fire Engine/Truck Lease Financing
Principal
Interest
Energy Conservation Lease Financing
Principal
Interest
Total Debt Service Fund
WATER FUND
2002 Revenue Refunding Bonds
Principal
Interest
2006 Water Treatment Plant Upgrade
Principal
Interest
2009 Lease Revenue Bonds -Public Safety EOC
Principal
Interest
2012 Revenue Refunding Bonds
Principal
Interest
Water Reuse Project Loan
Principal
Interest
Actual
2009-10
515,000
282,800
249,800
43,400
235,000
228,100
144,900
314,700
355,700
481,900
49,800
7,600
2,908,700
390,000
327,500
335,000
704,300
28,100
38,200
354,000
171,500
F-5
Actual
2010-11
535,000
264,800
259,000
36,000
250,000
219,900
149,500
308,900
448,900
397,500
80,000
16,300
51,600
5,800
3,023,200
400,000
314,600
345,000
691,400
35,500
32,000
362,800
162,700
2011-13 Financial Plan
2011-12 2012-13
200,000
251,700
266,400 273,800
28,200 19,600
255,000 270,000
211,100 202,000
156,400 163,300
303,000 296,800
461,600 470,100
384,100 370,100
210,000
177,000
100,000 100,000
29,900 26,900
53,800 55,900
4,000 2,000
2,705,200 2,637,500
415,000
273,200
360,000 375,000
673,900 659,600
36,500 37,100
30,400 29,400
340,000
191,600
371,900 381,200
153,600 144,400
DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS
ANNUALPAYMENTSBYSOURCE
Actual Actual
2009-10 2010-11
Energy Conservation Lease Financing
Principal 25,200 26,200
Interest 3,800 2,900
Total Water Fund 2,377,600 2,373,100
SEWER FUND
1992 State Revolving Fund Loan Fund
Principal 1,895,500 1,954,700
Interest 186,900 126,000
Installment Sale Agreement -Tank Farm Lift Station
Principal 100,000 105,000
Interest 89,800 85,500
CIEDB State Loan-Tank Farm Lift Station
Principal 212,700 219,600
Interest 351,000 343,300
2009 Lease Revenue Bonds-Public Safety EOC
Principal 31,900 40,300
Interest 43,300 36,300
Energy Conservation Lease Financing
Principal 244,000 253,200
Interest 36,500 27,700
Total Wastewater Fund 3,191,600 3,191,600
PARKING FUND
2004/1994 Refunded Lease Revenue Bonds
Principal 425,200 441,000
Interest 117,500 104,700
CIEDB State Loan
Principal 203,700 209,900
Interest 218,400 211,300
2006 Lease Revenue Bonds-919 Palm Street
Principal 170,100 175,500
Interest 377,200 370,400
2009 Lease Revenue Bonds -Public Safety EOC
Principal 4,200 5,300
Interest 5,700 4,700
Total Parking Fund 1,522,000 1,522,800
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS 9,999,900 10,110,700
Note: All General Fund debt service payments are accounted for in the Debt Service Fund.
F-6
2011-13 Financial Plan
2011-12
27,300
2,000
2,343,800
2,015,700
119,800
110,000
77,600
226,700
336,000
41,400
34,500
263,900
19,400
3,245,000
453,600
92,600
216,400
207,300
183,600
364,100
5,500
4,700
1,527,800
9,821,800
2012-13
28,300
1,000
2,187,600
1,828,900
56,900
115,000
72,900
234,100
327,800
42,200
33,300
274,000
9,900
2,995,000
466,200
77,900
223,000
200,000
191,700
356,800
5,600
4,400
1,525,600
9,345,700
DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS
COMPUTATION OF LEGAL DEBT MARGIN
Gross Assessed Valuation (2011-12) $6,170,252,021
Legal Debt Limit-3.75% of Gross Assessed Valuation (See Note Below) $231,384,500
Long-Term Debt:
Revenue Bonds Secured by Capital Leases
State Water Resources Revolving Fund Loans
State Infrastructure Bank Loans
Water Revenue Bonds
Installment Sale Agreement
Lease Purchase Financing
LESS DEDUCTIONS ALLOWED BYLAW:
Revenue Bonds Secured by Capital Leases
State Loans
Water Revenue Bonds
TOTAL DEBT APPLICABLE TO COMPUTED LIMIT
36,945,000
9,987,700
15,819,300
21,660,000
1,845,000
1,703,300
87,960,300
36,945,000
25,807,000
21,660,000
84,412,000
$3,548,300
LEGAL DEBT MARGIN $227,836,200
NOTE
The California Government Code provides for a legal debt limit of 15% of gross assessed valuation based on
25% of market value. Since this limit was set, the State Constitution has changed, requiring assessed value to
be set at 100% of market value. Adjusting for this change results in a comparable legal debt limit of3.75% of
assessed value. The City's debt management policy, however, sets a lower direct debt limit of 2% of assessed
valuation which is $123,405,040
F-7
Section G
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION
OVERVIEW
INTRODUCTION
This section summarizes revenues, expenditures, and
changes in financial position for each of the City's
operating funds. For the Governmental Funds,
financial position is defined as fund balance; for the
enterprise funds it is defined as working capital; and
for the Whale Rock Reservoir (an Agency Fund of
the City) it is defined as fund balance as reported by
the Whale Rock Commission in its separately issued
financial statements.
Because governmental and enterprise funds use
different bases of accounting, fund balance and
working capital are different measures of financial
position under generally accepted accounting
principles. However, they represent similar
concepts: resources available at the beginning of the
year to fund operations, debt service, and capital
improvements in the following year. Accordingly,
to establish a similar framework for evaluating and
projecting the City's overall fmancial position, these
two measures of fmancial position are used
interchangeably in this section.
Changes in financial position are provided for the
last two completed fiscal years (2009-1 0 and 2010-
11); and the two years covered by the 2011-13
Financial Plan (2011-12 and 2012-13).
BASIS OF ACCOUNTING AND BUDGETING
Basis of Accounting
In accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles, the City's financial reporting system is
organized on a fund basis consisting of three major
fund types-governmental, proprietary and
fiduciary. The City's various funds have been
established in order to segregate and identify those
financial transactions and resources associated with
providing specific activities or programs in
conformance with special regulations, restrictions, or
limitations.
Governmental funds are reported using the current
financial resources measurement focus and the
modified accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are
G-1
recognized as soon as they are both measurable and
available. Expenditures generally are recorded when
a liability is incurred; however, debt service
expenditures, as well as expenditures related to
compensated absences and claims and judgments,
are recorded only when payment is due.
Proprietary funds are accounted for on the flow of
economic resources measurement focus and use the
accrual basis of accounting. Under this method,
revenues are recorded when earned and expenses are
recorded at the time liabilities are incurred. The
only type of proprietary funds that the City uses are
enterprise funds for water, sewer, parking, and
transit.
The only fiduciary funds the City reports are agency
funds. Unlike other types of funds, agency funds
only report assets and liabilities, thus they do not
have a measurement focus since they do not report
operating activity. However, agency funds do use
the accrual basis of accounting to recognize
receivables and payables.
Basis of Budgeting
Budgetary basis refers to the basis of accounting
used to estimate financing sources and uses in the
budget. The City prepares its budget for each fund in
accordance with its respective basis of accounting.
CITY FUND DESCRIPTIONS
The following funds are included in the Financial
Plan; additional descriptions of each of the fund
types are provided in the Budget Glossary (Section
I) of the 20 11-13 Financial Plan:
Governmental Funds
Most of the City's programs and functions are
provided and financed through the following
governmental funds, which are distinguished by
their measurement focus on determining financial
position and changes in financial position (modified
accrual method), rather than upon determining net
income:
• General Fund
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION
• Special Revenue Funds
• Downtown Business Improvement District
(DBID)
• Tourism Business Improvement District
(TBID)
• Gas Tax
• Transportation Development Act
• Community Development Block Grant
• Law Enforcement Grants Fund
• Public Art (Private Sector Contributions)
Fund
• Proposition 42 Fund
• Proposition 1B Fund
• Capital Project Funds
• Capital Outlay Fund
• Parkland Development Fund
• Transportation Impact Fees Fund
• Open Space Protection Fund
• Airport Area Impact Fees Fund
• Affordable Housing Fund
• Fleet Replacement Fund
• Los Osos Valley Road Sub-Area Fee Fund
• Debt Service Fund
Enterprise Funds
Enterprise funds are distinguished from
governmental funds by their similarity to private
sector enterprises, as it is intended that the cost of
providing services will be financed or recovered
primarily through user charges (accrual basis).
G-2
The City uses the following four enterprise funds:
• Water
• Sewer
• Parking
• Transit
Trust and Agency Funds
Also known as fiduciary funds, agency funds are
used to account for assets held by the City in a
trustee capacity for private individuals,
organizations, or other governmental agencies.
Agency funds are custodial in nature (assets equal
liabilities) and do not measure the results of
operations (revenues, expenditures, and changes in
fund balance). Because of their custodial nature,
agency funds are not typically included in budgetary
documents. In this case, however, the City is
directly responsible for the day-to-day management
and operations of the Whale Rock Reservoir. As
such, because of its significance to the City's
operations and organizational structure, budget
information for the Whale Rock Commission (which
is accounted for as an agency fund of the City using
the accrual basis) is provided in the City's Financial
Plan.
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION
ALL FUNDS COMBINED
Revenues
Tax Revenues
Fines and Forfeitures
Investment and Property Revenues
Subventions and Grants
Service Charges
Governmental Funds
Enterprise Funds
Trust and Agency Revenues
Other Revenues
Total Revenues
Expenditures
Operating Programs
Public Safety
Public Utilities
Transportation
Leisure, Cultural & Social Services
Community Development
General Government
Total Operating Programs
Capital Improvement Plan Projects
Debt Service
Total Expenditures
Other Sources (Uses)
Operating Transfers In
Operating Transfers Out
Proceeds from Debt Financings
Potential MOA Adjustments
Other Sauces (Uses)
Expenditure Savings
Total Other Sources (Uses)
Revenues and Other Sources Over (Under)
Expenditures and Other Uses
Fund Balance/Working Capital,
Beginning of Year
Fund Balance/Working Capital,
End of Year
Reserved for Debt Service
Unreserved
Total Fund Balance/Working Capital
Actual
2009-10
42,093,000
892,200
2,698,800
8,277,700
5,882,600
30,685,200
1,034,900
426,000
91,990,400
24,203,800
12,378,900
7,069,800
6,785,200
6,690,200
11,517,500
68,645,400
22,649,700
9,999,900
101,295,000
8,383,400
(8,383,400)
(202,000)
(202,000)
(9,506,600)
75,318,900
2,285,700
63,526,600
$65,812,300
G-3
Actual
2010-11
43,698,500
816,900
1,547,300
8,444,800
9,209,300
31,404,200
1,008,500
303,800
96,433,300
23,506,100
17,040,200
7,079,100
6,785,200
7,053,500
11,278,600
72,742,700
16,688,500
10,110,700
99,541,900
7,297,400
(7,297,400)
1,044,000
23,700
263,800
1,331,500
(1,777,100)
65,812,300
2,285,700
61,749,500
$64,035,200
2011-13 Finanical Plan
2011-12
45,695,300
856,000
1,253,700
15,095,300
8,978,500
33,886,600
914,900
516,000
107,196,300
25,240,700
20,828,300
7,954,500
7,095,000
8,724,200
12,653,200
82,495,900
39,400,900
9,821,800
131,718,600
8,264,200
(8,264,200)
(117,400)
(95,000)
1,937,700
1,725,300
(22, 797 ,000)
64,035,200
2,285,700
38,952,500
$41,238,200
2012-13
46,972,800
857,200
1,273,200
5,349,600
7,016,900
39,328,900
884,800
131,700
101,815,100
24,849,000
20,610,400
8,126,700
7,199,200
7,458,900
12,662,200
80,906,400
5,853,900
9,345,700
96,106,000
7,958,200
(7 ,95 8,200)
(1,821,300)
25,100
1,664,300
(131,900)
5,577,200
41,238,200
2,285,700
44,529,700
$46,815,400
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION
ALLGOVERNMENTALFUNDSCOMBThffiD
Revenues
Tax Revenues
Fines and Forfeitures
Investment and Property Revenues
Subventions and Grants
Service Charges
Other Revenues
Total Revenues
Expenditures
Operating Programs
Public Safety
Transportation
Leisure, Cultural & Social Services
Community Development
General Government
Total Operating Programs
Reimbursed Expenditures
Total Operating Expenditures
Capital Improvement Plan Projects
Debt Service
Total Expenditures
Other Sources (Uses)
Operating Transfers In
Operating Transfers Out
Proceeds from Debt Financings
Potential MOA Adjustments
Other Sources (Uses)
Expenditure Savings
Total Other Sources (Uses)
Revenues and Other Sources Over (Under)
Expenditures and Other Uses
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year
Fund Balance, End of Year
Reserved for Debt Service
Unreserved
Total Fund Balance
Actual
2009-10
42,093,000
201,700
1,239,500
4,975,200
5,882,600
377,900
54,769,900
24,203,800
3,019,700
6,279,900
6,690,200
11,517,500
51,711,100
( 4,264,000)
47,447,100
17,100,600
2,908,700
67,456,400
8,081,900
(8,383,400)
(301,500)
(12,988,000)
44,405,900
2,285,700
29,132,200
$31,417,900
G-4
Actual
2010-11
43,698,500
171,400
742,500
4,982,100
9,209,300
270,500
59,074,300
23,506,100
2,901,900
6,268,700
7,053,500
11,278,600
51,008,800
(4,449,900)
46,558,900
10,607,300
3,023,200
60,189,400
6,964,100
(7' 191 ,300)
1,044,000
393,900
1,210,700
95,600
31,417,900
2,285,700
29,227,800
$31,513,500
2011-13 Finanical Plan
2011-12
45,695,300
155,100
640,900
10,672,100
8,978,500
414,400
66,556,300
25,240,700
3,212,900
7,095,000
8,724,200
12,653,200
56,926,000
(3,774,900)
53,151,100
24,568,900
2,705,200
80,425,200
8,264,200
(8,264,200)
(100,000)
1,986,900
1,886,900
(11,982,000)
31,513,500
2,285,700
17,245,800
$19,531,500
2012-13
46,972,800
162,600
849,700
2,658,100
7,016,900
85,000
57,745,100
24,849,000
3,267,800
7,199,200
7,458,900
12,662,200
55,437,100
(3,732,100)
51,705,000
4,488,900
2,637,500
58,831,400
7,958,200
(7,937,000)
540,900
1,585,000
2,147,100
1,060,800
19,531,500
2,285,700
18,306,600
$20,592,300
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION
ALL ENTERPRISE AND AGENCY FUNDS COMBINED
Revenues
Fines and Forfeitures
Investment and Property Revenues
Subventions and Grants
Service Charges
Other Revenues
Trust and Agency Revenues
Total Revenues
Expenditures
Operating Programs
Public Utilities
Transportation
Leisure, Cultural & Social Services
General Government
Total Operating Programs
Capital Improvement Plan Projects
Debt Service
Total Expenditures
Other Sources (Uses)
Operating Transfers In
Operating Transfers Out
Expenditure Savings
Other Sources (Uses)
Potential MOA Adjustments
Total Other Sources (Uses)
Revenues and Other Sources Over (Under)
Expenditures and Other Uses
Working Capital, Beginning of Year
Working Capital, End of Year
Actual
2009-10
690,500
1,459,300
3,302,500
30,685,200
48,100
1,034,900
37,220,500
12,378,900
4,050,100
505,300
4,264,000
21,198,300
5,549,100
7,091,200
33,838,600
301,500
(202,000)
99,500
3,481,400
30,913,000
$34,394,400
G-5
Actual
2010-11
645,500
804,800
3,462,700
31,404,200
33,300
1,008,500
37,359,000
17,040,200
4,177,200
516,500
4,349,400
26,083,300
6,081,200
7,087,500
39,252,000
333,300
(1 06, 100)
(130,100)
23,700
120,800
(1,772,200)
34,394,400
$32,622,200
2011-13 Finanical Plan
2011-12 2012-13
700,900 694,600
612,800 423,500
4,423,200 2,691,500
33,886,600 39,328,900
101,600 46,700
914,900 884,800
40,640,000 44,070,000
20,828,300 20,610,400
4,741,600 4,858,900
3,774,900 3,732,100
29,344,800 29,201,400
14,832,000 1,365,000
7,116,600 6,708,200
51,293,400 37,274,600
(21,200)
(49,200) 79,300
(95,000) 25,100
(17,400) (2,362,200)
(161,600) (2,279,000)
(10,815,000) 4,516,400
32,728,300 21,913,300
$21,913,300 $26,429,700
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION
GENERAL FUND
Actual Actual 2011-13 Finanical Plan
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
Revenues
Tax Revenues 42,093,000 43,698,500 45,695,300 46,972,800
Fines and Forfeitures 201,700 171,400 155,100 162,600
Investment and Property Revenues 904,800 549,900 475,500 695,500
Subventions and Grants 1,235,000 796,000 1,413,600 321,500
Service Charges 4,691,600 4,987,100 5,614,900 5,448,900
Other Revenues 139,600 179,300 79,200 75,000
Total Revenues 49,265,700 50,382,200 53,433,600 53,676,300
Expenditures
Operating Programs
Public Safety 24,203,800 23,506,100 25,240,700 24,849,000
Transportation 3,019,700 2,901,900 3,212,900 3,267,800
Leisure, Cultural & Social Services 6,279,900 6,268,700 7,095,000 7,199,200
Community Development 5,394,000 5,309,000 7,139,100 6,023,400
General Government 11,517,500 11,178,100 12,653,200 12,662,200
Total Program Expenditures 50,414,900 49,163,800 55,340,900 54,001,600
Reimbursed Expenditures ( 4,264,000) (4,449,900) (3,774,900) (3,732,100)
Total Expenditures 46,150,900 44,713,900 51,566,000 50,269,500
Other Sources (Uses)
Operating Transfers In 1,195,400 1,658,400 1,282,800 1,281,100
Operating Transfers Out (7,188,000) (5,532,900) (6,981,400) (6,655,900)
Proceeds from Debt Financings
MOA & Other Compensation Adjustments (100,000) 540,900
Expenditure Savings 1,986,900 1,585,000
Total Other Sources (Uses) (5,992,600) (3,874,500) (3,811, 700) (3,248,900)
Revenues and Other Sources Over (Under)
Expenditures and Other Uses (2,877,800) 1,793,800 (1,944,100) 157,900
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 13,991,900 11,114,100 12,907,900 10,963,800
Fund Balance, End of Year $11,114,100 $12,907,900 $10,963,800 $11,121,700
G-6
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION
DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FUND
Revenues
Investment and Property Revenues
Service Charges
Assessments
Other Revenues
Total Revenues
Expenditures
Operating Programs
Community Development
Total Expenditures
Revenues and Other Sources Over (Under)
Expenditures and Other Uses
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year
Fund Balance, End of Year
Actual
2009-10
208,300
208,300
208,300
208,300
1,100
$1,100
G-7
Actual
2010-11
198,000
198,000
196,800
196,800
1,200
1,100
$2,300
2011-13 Finanical Plan
2011-12 2012-13
198,100 200,000
198,100 200,000
199,200 200,000
199,200 200,000
(1,100)
2,300 1,200
$1,200 $1,200
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION
TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FUND
Revenues
Investment and Property Revenues
Service Charges
Other Revenues
Total Revenues
Expenditures
Operating Programs
Community Development
Total Expenditures
Other Sources (Uses)
Operating Transfers Out
Total Other Sources (Uses)
Revenues and Other Sources Over (Under)
Expenditures and Other Uses
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year
Fund Balance, End of Year
Actual
2009-10
17,800
902,500
920,300
828,100
828,100
92,200
523,800
$616,000
G-8
Actual
2010-11
8,200
967,200
975,400
1,359,700
1,359,700
(38,700)
(38,700)
(423,000)
616,000
$193,000
2011-13 Finanical Plan
2011-12
3,000
1,025,000
1,028,000
1,122,900
1,122,900
(41,000)
(41,000)
(135,900)
193,000
$57,100
2012-13
3,000
1,055,000
1,058,000
992,000
992,000
(21,100)
(21,100)
44,900
57,100
$102,000
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION
GASTAXFUND
Revenues
Subventions and Grants
Gasoline Tax
Total Revenues
Other Sources (Uses)
Operating Transfers Out
Total Other Sources (Uses)
Revenues and Other Sources Over (Under)
Expenditures and Other Uses
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year
Fund Balance, End of Year $
Actual
2009-10
762,400
762,400
(762,400)
(762,400)
-$
G-9
Actual
2010-11
1,092,500
1,092,500
(1,092,500)
(1,092,500)
$
2011-13 Finanical Plan
2011-12 2012-13
1,215,600 1,233,800
1,215,600 1,233,800
(1,215,600) (1,233,800)
(1,215,600) (1,233,800)
-$
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT (TDA) FUND
Revenues
Subventions and Grants
Total Revenues
Other Sources (Uses)
Operating Transfers Out
Total Other Sources (Uses)
Revenues and Other Sources Over (Under)
Expenditures and Other Uses
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year
Fund Balance, End of Year $
Actual
2009-10
27,800
27,800
(27,800)
(27,800)
-$
G-10
Actual 2011-13 Finanical Plan
2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
27,200 26,200 26,200
27,200 26,200 26,200
(27,200) (26,200) (26,200)
(27,200) (26,200) (26,200)
$ -$
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUND
Revenues
From Other Governments
CDBG Allocation
Total Revenues
Expenditures
Operating Programs
Community Development
General Government
Total Operating Programs
Capital Improvement Plan Projects
Total Expenditures
Other Sources (Uses)
Operating Transfer In
Total Other Sources (uses)
Revenues and Other Sources Over (Under)
Expenditures and Other Uses
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year
Fund Balance, End of Year * $
Actual
2009-10
817,000
817,000
259,800
259,800
579,000
838,800
21,800
21,800
-$
Actual
2010-11
709,700
709,700
188,000
100,500
288,500
460,700
749,200
39,500
39,500
2011-13 Finanical Plan
2011-12 2012-13
1,461,500 506,600
1,461,500 506,600
263,000 243,500
263,000 243,500
1,275,800 329,300
1,538,800 572,800
77,300 66,200
77,300 66,200
$ -$
* Estimate of revenue and expenditure activity for 2011-12 as approved by Council Apri/17, 2012.
G-11
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION
LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANTS FUND
Revenues
Investment and Property Revenues
Subventions and Grants
Service Charges
Total Revenues
Expenditures
Operating Programs
Public Safety
Total Operating Expenditures
Capital Improvement Plan Projects
Total Expenditures
Revenues and Other Sources Over (Under)
Expenditures and Other Uses
Fund Balance, Beginning ofYear
Fund Balance, End of Year
Actual
2009-10
1,300
3,200
4,500
13,000
13,000
(8,500)
47,200
$38,700
G-12
Actual 2011-13 Finanical Plan
2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
700 800 900
2,600 2,000 2,000
3,300 2,800 2,900
26,200
26,200
3,300 (23,400) 2,900
38,700 42,000 18,600
$42,000 $18,600 $21,500
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION
PUBLIC ART (PRIVATE SECTOR CONTRIBUTIONS) FUND
Revenues
Investment and Property Revenues
Service Charges
In-lieu fees
Total Revenues
Expenditures
Operating Programs
Leisure, Cultural & Social Services
Capital Improvement Plan Projects
Total Expenditures
Revenues and Other Sources Over (Under)
Expenditures and Other Uses
Fund Balance, Beginning ofYear
Fund Balance, End of Year $
Actual
2009-10
12,100
20,100
32,200
59,700
59,700
(27,500)
415,800
388,300 $
G-13
Actual
2010-11
7,000
85,100
92,100
113,700
113,700
(21,600)
388,300
366,700
2011-13 Finanical Plan
2011-12 2012-13
6,000 6,000
28,000 20,000
34,000 26,000
234,400
234,400
(200,400) 26,000
366,700 166,300
$166,300 $192,300
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION
PROPOSITION 42 FUND
Revenues
Investment and Property Revenues
Subventions and Grants
State Grants
Total Revenues
Expenditures
Operating Programs
Transportation
Capital Improvement Plan Projects
Total Expenditures
Other Sources (Uses)
Operating Transfer In
Operating Transfer Out
Total Other Sources (Uses)
Revenues and Other Sources Over (Under)
Expenditures and Other Uses
Fund Balance, Beginning ofYear
Fund Balance, End of Year $
Actual
2009-10
405,200
405,200
(405,200)
(405,200)
-$
Actual
2010-11
Operating transfers out are for street reconstruction, resurfacing and sealing.
G-14
2011-13 Finanical Plan
2011-12 2012-13
$ -$
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION
CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND
Revenues
Subventions and Grants
Service Charges
Other Revenues
Total Revenues
Expenditures
Capital Improvement Plan Projects
Total Expenditures
Other Sources (Uses)
Operating Transfers In
Operating Transfers Out
Other Sources (Uses)
Proceeds from Debt Financing
Total Other Sources (Uses)
Revenues and Other Sources Over (Under)
Expenditures and Other Uses
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year
Fund Balance, End of Year
Actual
2009-10
739,900
113,100
853,000
10,285,000
10,285,000
3,542,500
3,542,500
(5,889,500)
14,795,400
Actual
2010-11
1,467,000
33,600
1,500,600
6,606,200
6,606,200
2,243,000
(500,000)
393,900
2,136,900
(2,968, 700)
8,905,900
$ 8,905,900 $ 5,937,200
G-15
2011-13 Finanical Plan
2011-12 2012-13
3,553,200 40,000
565,000 280,000
4,118,200 320,000
13,516,800 3,570,900
13,516,800 3,570,900
3,461,400 3,250,900
3,461,400 3,250,900
(5,937,200)
5,937,200
$ -$
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION
PARKLAND DEVELOPMENT FUND
Revenues
Investment and Property Revenues
Subventions and Grants
Service Charges
Park In-Lieu Fees
Dwelling Unit Fees
Other Revenues
Total Revenues
Expenditures
Capital Improvement Plan Projects
Total Expenditures
Other Sources (Uses)
Operating Transfers In
Operating Transfers Out
Total Other Sources (Uses)
Revenues and Other Sources Over (Under)
Expenditures and Other Uses
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year
Fund Balance, End of Year
Actual
2009-10
41,800
35,200
1,200
78,200
67,000
67,000
11,200
1,319,900
$1,331,100
G-16
Actual 2011-13 Finanical Plan
2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
23,600 18,000 18,000
25,600 67,100
34,900 3,000 10,000
900 1,200 1,000
323,000
85,000 412,300 29,000
169,400 1,548,900
169,400 1,548,900
(84,400) (1 ,136,600) 29,000
1,331,100 1,246,700 110,100
$1,246,700 $110,100 $139,100
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE FUND
Actual Actual 2011-13 Finanical Plan
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
Revenues
Investment and Property Revenue 107,500 72,100 64,000 65,500
Subventions and Grants 399,900 647,300 2,371,700 530,000
Service Charges 30,200 804,600 236,100
Other Revenues 87,200 55,900 7,200
Total Revenues 624,800 1,579,900 2,679,000 595,500
Expenditures
Capital Improvement Plan Projects 893,300 757,100 5,668,500 275,000
Total Expenditures 893,300 757,100 5,668,500 275,000
Other Sources (Uses)
Operating Transfer In 74,000
Operating Transfer Out
Total Sources (Uses) 74,000
Revenues and Other Sources Over (Under)
Expenditures and Other Uses (194,500) 822,800 {2,989,500) 320,500
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 3,592,800 3,398,300 4,221,100 1,231,600
Fund Balance, End of Year $3,398,300 $4,221,100 $1,231,600 $1,552,100
G-17
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION
LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD SUB-AREA FEE FUND
Actual Actual 2011-13 Finanical Plan
2009-10
Revenues
Investment and Property Revenue 8,600
Service Charges 11,200
Total Revenues 19,800
Expenditures
Capital Improvement Plan Projects * 19,000
Total Expenditures 19,000
Revenues and Other Sources Over (Under)
Expenditures and Other Uses 800
Fund Balance, Beginning ofYear 168,200
Fund Balance, End of Year $169,000
2010-11
18,200
1,796,100
1,814,300
1,622,600
1,622,600
191,700
169,000
$360,700
2011-12
13,000
606,300
619,300
236,400
236,400
382,900
360,700
$743,600
* Includes pass-throughs to Costco per the City s reimbursement agreement with them for Calle Joaquin
improvements.
G-18
2012-13
2,000
2,000
2,000
743,600
$745,600
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION
OPEN SPACE PROTECTION FUND
Actual Actual 2011-13 Finanical Plan
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
Revenues
Investment and Property Revenue 12,700 (800) 2,500 500
Subventions and Grants 314,800 186,800 563,200
Other Revenues 10,500 200
Total Revenues 338,000 186,200 565,700 500
Expenditures
Capital Improvement Plan Projects 370,500 560,500 813,500 22,500
Total Expenditures 370,500 560,500 813,500 22,500
Other Sources (Uses)
Operating Transfer In 260,400 237,500 22,500
Operating Transfer Out
Total Other Sources (Uses) 260,400 237,500 22,500
Revenues and Other Sources Over (Under)
Expenditures and Other Uses 227,900 (374,300) (10,300) 500
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 261,500 489,400 115,100 104,800
Fund Balance, End of Year $489,400 $115,100 $104,800 $105,300
G-19
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION
AIRPORT AREA IM:PACT FEE FUND
Actual Actual 2011-13 Finanical Plan
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
Revenues
Investment and Property Revenue 31,500 19,000 16,000 16,500
Service Charges 3,600
Total Revenues 35,100 19,000 16,000 16,500
Expenditures
Capital Improvement Plan Projects 19,400 355,600
Total Expenditures 19,400 355,600
Revenues and Other Sources Over (Under)
Expenditures and Other Uses 35,100 (400) (339,600) 16,500
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 993,700 1,028,800 1,028,400 688,800
Fund Balance, End of Year $1,028,800 $1,028,400 $688,800 $705,300
G-20
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND
Actual Actual 2011-13 Finanical Plan
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
Revenues
Investment and Property Revenue 41,600 19,900 20,000 20,000
Subventions & Grants 270,000 30,000
Service Charges (21,300) 332,800 698,900
Total Revenues 290,300 382,700 718,900 20,000
Expenditures
Capital Improvement Plan Projects 3,407,600 39,900 744,700
Total Expenditures 3,407,600 39,900 744,700
Revenues and Other Sources Over (Under)
Expenditures and Other Uses (3,117,300) 342,800 (25,800) 20,000
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 3,785,000 667,700 1,010,500 984,700
Fund Balance, End of Year $667,700 $1,010,500 $984,700 $1,004,700
G-21
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION
FLEET REPLACEMENT FUND
Actual Actual 2011-13 Finanical Plan
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
Revenues
Investment and Property Revenues 59,800 24,700 22,100 21,800
Other Revenues
Sale of Surplus Property 27,500 1,500 5,000 10,000
Total Revenues 87,300 26,200 27,100 31,800
Expenditures
Capital Improvement Plan Projects 1,406,500 257,800 148,100 291,200
Total Expenditures 1,406,500 257,800 148,100 291,200
Other Sources (Uses)
Operating Transfers In 79,100 500,000 700,000
Proceeds from Financing 1,044,000
Total Other Sources (Uses) 79,100 1,044,000 500,000 700,000
Revenues and Other Sources Over (Under)
Expenditures and Other Uses (1,240,100) 812,400 379,000 440,600
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 2,223,900 983,800 1,796,200 2,175,200
Fund Balance, End of Year $983,800 $1,796,200 $2,175,200 $2,615,800
G-22
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION
DEBT SERVICE FUND
Expenditures
Debt Service
2001 Refunded Revenue Bonds
2004 Refunding Revenue Bonds
2005 Refunding Revenue Bonds
2006 Lease Revenue Bonds
2009 Lease Revenue Bonds
2012 Refunding Revenue Bonds
Fire Engine/Truck Lease Financing
Energy Conservation Lease Purchase
Total Expenditures
Other Sources (Uses)
Operating Transfers In
Proceeds from Debt Financing
Total Other Sources (Uses)
Revenues and Other Sources Over (Under)
Expenditures and Other Uses
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year
Fund Balance, End of Year
Reserved for Debt Service
Unreserved
Total Fund Balance
Actual
2009-10
797,800
293,200
463,100
459,600
837,600
57,400
2,908,700
2,908,700
2,908,700
2,285,700
2,285,700
$2,285,700
G-23
Actual
2010-11
799,800
295,000
469,900
458,400
846,400
96,300
57,400
3,023,200
3,023,200
3,023,200
2,285,700
2,285,700
$2,285,700
2011-13 Finanical Plan
2011-12 2012-13
451,700
294,600 293,400
466,100 472,000
459,400 460,100
845,700 840,200
387,000
129,900 126,900
57,800 57,900
2,705,200 2,637,500
2,705,200 2,637,500
2,705,200 2,637,500
2,285,700 2,285,700
2,285,700 2,285,700
$2,285,700 $2,285,700
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION
WATER FUND
Revenues
Service Charges
Water Sales
Water Service Charges
Sales to Cal Poly
Development Impact Fees
Connection Charges and Meter Sales
Account Set-up Fee
Other Service Charges
Total Service Charges
Other Revenues
Subventions and Grants
Investment and Property Revenues
Total Revenues
Expenditures
Operating Programs
Public Utilities
General Government
Total Operating Programs
Capital Improvement Plan Projects
Debt Service
Total Expenditures
Other Sources (Uses)
Other Sources (Uses)
Proceeds from Debt Financing
Potential MOA Adjustments
Expenditure Savings
Other Sources (Uses)
Total Other Sources (Uses)
Revenues and Other Sources Over (Under)
Expenditures and Other Uses
Working Capital, Beginning of Year
Working Capital, End of Year
Actual
2009-10
12,150,500
939,600
448,200
6,500
81,100
112,200
13,738,100
74,000
663,500
14,475,600
5,934,200
1,669,300
7,603,500
2,618,100
2,377,600
12,599,200
(119,700)
(119,700)
1,756,700
13,897,100
$15,653,800
G-24
Actual
2010-11
12,290,700
1,098,000
639,600
6,800
113,800
112,800
14,261,700
36,400
342,500
14,640,600
10,686,600
1,702,700
12,389,300
2,197,400
2,373,000
16,959,700
42,700
42,700
(2,276,400)
15,653,800
$13,377,400
2011-13 Finanical Plan
2011-12 2012-13
13,951,200 14,859,900
1,137,100 1,028,800
516,300 386,900
9,100 9,200
115,500 116,400
125,600 126,600
15,854,800 16,527,800
37,800 38,100
232,200 186,200
16,124,800 16,752,100
13,664,100 13,264,300
1,309,400 1,316,700
14,973,500 14,581,000
2,817,600 200,000
2,343,800 2,187,600
20,134,900 16,968,600
(49,200) 79,300
62,300 62,900
13,100 142,200
(3,997,000) (74,300)
13,377,400 9,380,400
$9,380,400 $9,306,100
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION
SEWER FUND
Revenues
Service Charges
Customer Sales
Sewer Service Charges
Sales to Cal Poly
Industrial User Charges
Development Impact Fees
Connection Charges and Meter Sales
Account Set-up Fee
Other Service Charges
Total Service Charges
Other Revenues
Investment and Property Revenues
Total Revenues
Expenditures
Operating Programs
Public Utilities
General Government
Total Operating Programs
Capital Improvement Plan Projects
Debt Service
Total Expenditures
Other Sources (Uses)
Proceeds from Debt Financing
Potential MOA Adjustments
Other Sources (Uses)
Total Other Sources (Uses)
Revenues and Other Sources Over (Under)
Expenditures and Other Uses
Working Capital, Beginning of Year
Working Capital, End of Year
Actual
2009-10
12,171,900
779,300
63,400
98,700
6,500
108,300
13,228,100
(3,000)
411,000
13,636,100
5,601,000
1,438,400
7,039,400
1,803,400
3,191,600
12,034,400
V32,8oo~
(132,800)
1,468,900
8,165,000
$9,633,900
G-25
Actual
2010-11
12,493,800
471,000
63,500
169,800
6,700
113,800
13,318,600
1,800
206,500
13,526,900
5,652,200
1,467,200
7,119,400
2,216,400
3,191,500
12,527,300
~64,600)
(64,600)
935,000
9,633,900
$10,568,900
2011-13 Finanical Plan
2011-12 2012-13
13,152,400 14,266,000
725,000 799,200
65,200 65,700
128,600 103,700
9,100 9,200
115,500 116,400
14,195,800 15,360,200
45,700 3,600
213,000 128,600
14,454,500 15,492,400
6,373,700 6,543,100
1,354,300 1,394,100
7,728,000 7,937,200
7,486,400 970,000
3,245,000 2,995,000
18,459,400 11,902,200
82,000
~157,300) ~62,900~
(157,300) 19,100
(4,162,200) 3,609,300
10,568,900 6,406,700
$6,406,700 $10,016,000
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION
PARKING FUND
Revenues
Service Charges
Parking Meter Collections
Lots
Streets
Parking Structure Collections
Long-Term Parking Revenues
Lease Revenues
Parking In-Lieu Fees
Other Service Charges
Total Service Charges
Investment and Property Revenues
Fines and Forfeitures
Other Revenues
Total Revenues
Expenditures
Operating Programs
Transportation
General Government
Total Operating Programs
Capital Improvement Plan Projects
Debt Service
Total Expenditures
Other Sources (Uses)
Potential MOA Adjustments
Operating Transfers Out
Other Sources (Uses)
Total Other Sources (Uses)
Revenues and Other Sources Over (Under)
Expenditures and Other Uses
Working Capital, Beginning of Year
Working Capital, End of Year
Actual
2009-10
392,100
1,141,900
713,700
349,900
204,800
12,800
~9,600)
2,805,600
292,200
690,500
3,788,300
1,603,900
538,500
2,142,400
100,200
1,522,000
3,764,600
17,200
17,200
40,900
7,250,900
$7,291,800
G-26
Actual
2010-11
402,900
1,193,000
739,500
364,200
209,300
15,400
900
1,640,900
549,300
2,190,200
624,100
1,523,000
4,337,300
(106,100)
23,700
(82,400)
(689,600)
7,291,800
$6,602,200
2011-13 Finanical Plan
2011-12 2012-13
468,500 415,000
1,359,000 1,436,700
764,200 814,800
374,600 378,300
210,200 376,300
21,000 3,382,000
100 100
3,197,600 6,803,200
132,000 88,900
700,900 694,600
4,030,500 7,586,700
1,983,000 2,003,200
533,700 508,600
2,516,700 2,511,800
2,136,900 195,000
1,527,800 1,525,600
6,181,400 4,232,400
25,100
~2,400,0001
(2,374,900)
(2,150,900) 979,400
6,602,200 4,451,300
$4,451,300 $5,430,700
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION
TRANSIT FUND
Revenues
Investment and Property Revenues
From Other Governments
TDA Revenues
Other Grants
FTA Grants
Service Charges
Other Revenues
Total Revenues
Expenditures
Operating Programs
Transportation
General Government
Total Operating Programs
Capital Improvement Plan Projects
Total Expenditures
Other Sources (Uses)
Potential MOA Adjustments
Other Sources (Uses)
Expenditure Savings
Total Other Sources (Uses)
Revenues and Other Sources Over (Under)
Expenditures and Other Uses
Working Capital, Beginning of Year
Working Capital, End of Year
Actual
2009-10
5,100
992,400
979,100
1,331,000
584,900
(33,300)
3,859,200
2,446,200
350,200
2,796,400
986,500
3,782,900
33,300
33,300
109,600
729,000
$838,600
G-27
Actual 2011-13 Finanical Plan
2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
10,500 21,600 5,700
1,046,200 1,379,300 1,416,900
318,800 1,160,000
2,097,700 1,883,900 1,274,600
592,000 638,400 637,700
1,100 18,100 5,000
4,066,300 5,101,300 3,339,900
2,536,300 2,758,600 2,855,700
357,200 476,500 416,900
2,893,500 3,235,100 3,272,600
1,010,600 1,782,700
3,904,100 5,017,800 3,272,600
13,000
(2,100)
(2,100) 13,000
160,100 96,500 67,300
838,600 998,700 1,095,200
$998,700 $1,095,200 $1,162,500
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION
GOLF FUND
Revenues
Service Charges
Retail Sales
Green Fees
Other Fees
Total Service Charges
Other Revenues
Investment and Property Revenues
Total Revenues
Expenditures
Operating Programs
Leisure, Cultural & Social Services
General Government
Total Operating Programs
Capital Improvement Plan Projects
Total Expenditures
Other Sources (Uses)
Operating Transfers In
Other Sources (Uses)
Expenditure Savings
Potential MOA Adjustments
Total Other Sources (Uses)
Revenues and Other Sources Over (under)
Expenditures and Other Uses
Working Capital, Beginning of Year
Working Capital, End of Year
Actual
2009-10
24,300
255,300
48,900
328,500
10,400
56,400
395,300
505,300
168,300
673,600
40,900
714,500
301,500
301,500
(17,700)
61,100
$43,400
Actual
2010-11
16,700
244,500
45,500
306,700
57,700
364,400
516,500
171,700
688,200
32,700
720,900
333,300
333,300
(23,200)
43,400
$20,200
2011-13 Finanical Plan
2011-12 2012-13
20,200 20,200
$20,200 $20,200
*Beginning in 2011-12, Ollf operations are incorporated into Recreational Activities in the General Fund.
G-28
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION
WHALE ROCK COMMISSION
Revenues
Investment and Property Revenues
Service Charges
Member Agency Contributions
Water Distribution Charges
Other Revenues
Total Service Charges
Other Revenues
Total Revenues
Expenditures
Operating Programs
Public Utilities
General Government
Total Operating Programs
Capital Improvement Plan Projects
Total Expenditures
Other Sources (Uses)
Expenditure savings
Potential MOA Adjustments
Total Other Sources (Uses)
Revenues and Other Sources Over (Under)
Expenditures and Other Uses
Working Capital, Beginning of Year
Working Capital, End of Year
Actual
2009-10
31,100
660,900
372,600
1,400
1,034,900
1,066,000
843,700
99,300
943,000
943,000
123,000
809,900
$932,900
G-29
Actual 2011-13 Finanical Plan
2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
22,200 14,000 14,100
766,100 624,500 582,300
240,800 289,000 301,100
1,600 1,400 1,400
1,008,500 914,900 884,800
1,030,700 928,900 898,900
701,400 790,500 803,000
101,300 101,000 95,800
802,700 891,500 898,800
608,400
802,700 1,499,900 898,800
(30,400) (44,200)
(30,400) (44,200)
228,000 (601,400) (44,100)
932,900 1,160,900 559,500
$1,160,900 $559,500 $515,400
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION
PARK HOTEL FUND
Revenues
Investment and Property Revenues
Subventions and Grants
Total Revenues
Expenditures
Operating Programs
Capital Improvement Plan Projects
Total Expenditures
Other Sources (Uses)
Operating Transfer In
Operating Transfer Out
Total Other Sources (Uses)
Revenues and Other Sources Over (Under)
Expenditures and Other Uses
Fund Balance, Beginning ofYear
Fund Balance, End of Year $
Actual
2009-10
21,200
21,200
G-30
$
Actual
2010-11
21,200
21,200 $
2011-13 Finanical Plan
2011-12 2012-13
17,900
~21,200)
17,900 (21,200)
17,900 (21,200)
21,200 39,100
39,100 $ 17,900
Section H
FINANCIAL & STATISTICAL TABLES
FINANCIAL AND STATISTICAL TABLES
OVERVIEW
This section provides summaries that integrate the
other Financial Plan sections as well as provide
supplemental financial and statistical information.
Generally, each schedule provides information for
four fiscal years: last two completed fiscal years
(2009-10 and 2010-11); and the two fiscal years
covered by the 2011-13 Financial Plan (20 11-12 and
2012-13). The following schedules are included in
this section:
Revenue and Expenditure Summaries
• Summary of Key Revenue Assumptions
• Revenues by Major Category and Source
• Total Expenditures by Type and Function
Interfund Transactions
• Reimbursement Transfers
• Operating Transfers
Staffmg Summaries
• Regular Positions by Department
• Regular Positions by Function
• Temporary Full-Time Equivalents (PTE's) by
Function
H-1
Financial Trends
• Pension Obligation Cost Trends
• Retiree Health Care Obligations
• New or Increased Fees or Taxes
• Revenue and Expenditure Trends: Last Five
Completed Fiscal Years
• Expenditures by Type: Last Five Years
Other Statistical and Financial Summaries
• Appropriations Limit History
• Demographic and Statistical Summary
FINANCIAL AND STATISTICAL TABLES
SUMMARY OF KEY REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS
GENERAL FUND
One of the key analytical tools developed during the 2011-13 Financial Plan process was a comprehensive five year
financial forecast for the General Fund. This forecast considered key revenue and expenditure projection factors such
as population, increases in the consumer price index (CPI) and other growth factors. The trending of these key
factors and their effect on revenues and expenditures for the past fifteen years provided an historical basis for the five
year financial forecast, which was initially presented to the Council in December 2010 and updated in Apri12011.
As part of the 2011-12 mid-year budget review process, the revenue assumptions included in the forecast were
comprehensively reexamined based on actual results for 2010-11 as well as emerging trends at the mid-point of the
year. Accordingly, with few exceptions, the revenue projections reflected in this Financial Plan rely heavily on the
projections made as part of the Forecast.
Sources used in developing these revised projections include economic trends as reported in the national media,
forecast data for California as developed by the UCLA forecasting project, forecast data for San Luis Obispo County
as developed by the UCSB forecasting project and the Central Coast Economic Forecast, economic and fiscal information
developed by the State Legislative Analyst and the State Department of Finance, and materials prepared by the League
of California Cities and State Controller's Office. Ultimately, however, the 2011-13 revenue projections reflect staffs
best judgment about the performance of the local economy over the next two years and potential State budget actions
and how these will affect the City's General Fund revenues.
Top Ten General Fund Revenues
The following provides a brief description of the City's top ten General Fund revenues along with an overview of the
assumptions used in preparing 2011-13 revenue projections. These "top ten" revenues account for over 95% of total
General Fund revenues.
0 Sales Tax (Includes Measure Y)
Grows by 7% in 2011-12
Grows by 4.5% in 20/2-13
201/-12 revenue
2012-13 revenue
%of total revenue
$18,954,900
$19,807,800
35%
In addition to growth in the base in
2011-12, the revenue estimate assumes
added revenues from the Airport Area
annexation pursuant to the five-year
phase-in agreement with the County.
8 Property Tax
Decline by /.5% in 20//-12
Grows by 0% in 2012-13
2011-12 revenue
20/2-13 revenue
% of total revenue
$8,370,200
$8,370,200
16%
The City receives an "effective" rate of 1% from all taxable retail sales
occurring in its limits: 0.75% is the local tax rate, which was reduced by
the State from 1% in 2006-07, with the 0.25% used for their own
purposes in paying-off deficit reduction bonds. However, this 0.25%
takeaway is "backfilled" by the State under a complicated scheme
known as the "triple flip." This is collected for the City by the State of
California along with their component of the sales tax as well as funds
dedicated to public safety and transportation.
Measure Y Revenues. In November 2006, City voters
approved a 1/2 cent local sales tax increase. The same assumptions
for sales tax were applied to this transaction tax in preparing
revenue estimates for 20 11-13.
Under Proposition 13 adopted in June of 1978, property taxes for
general purposes may not exceed 1% of market value. Property tax
assessment, collection and apportionment are performed by the County.
The City receives approximately 14% of the levy within its limits.
Assessment increases to reflect current market value are allowed when
property ownership changes or when improvements are made;
otherwise, increases in assessed value are limited to 2% annually.
Based on both recent and long-term trends, this revenue is projected to
decline by 1.5% in 2011-12 and remain flat in 2012-13.
H-2
FINANCIAL AND STATISTICAL TABLES
SUMMARY OF KEY REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS
C) Transient Occupancy Tax
Base grows by 6% in 20/1-12
Base grows by 4% in 2012-13
2011-12 revenue
2012-13 revenue
%of total revenue
$5,134,800
$5,395,000
10%
0 Utility Users Tax
Grows by less than 1% in 20/1-12
Grows by less than I% in 2012-13
2011-12 revenue $4,898,900
2012-13 revenue $4,938,100
%of total revenue 9%
0 Property Tax in Lieu of VLF
Underlying base grows like property tax
0
8
2011-12 revenue $3,551,000
2012-13 revenue
% of total revenue
Franchise Fees
$3,551,000
7%
Grows by less than 1% in 20/1-12
Grows by less than 1% in 2012-13
20II-12 revenue $2,503,400
2012-13 revenue $2,523,000
%of total revenue 5%
Business Tax Certificates
Grows by 2.5% in 2011-12
Grows by 3.0% in 2012-13
2011-12 revenue $1,849,800
2012-13 revenue $1,923,100
% oftotal revenue 3%
Transient occupancy taxes (TOT) are levied on all individuals occupying
their dwelling for 30 days or less. This is generally most applicable to
room rentals at motels and hotels, although it is also applicable to other
types of short term rentals. The TOT rate is I 0% of the room rental
rate. Although the tax is collected for the City by the operators, it is a
tax on the occupant, not the hotel or motel. Given the current year-to-date
results in 2011-12, this revenue source appears to be making a good
recovery to pre-recession amounts.
The City levies a 5% tax on all residences and businesses using the
following utilities: telephone, electricity, natural gas, water and cable
television. Government agencies are exempt. Although the tax is
collected for the City by the utility companies, it is a tax on the user, not
the utility. This revenue source is projected to grow by approximately
0.8% annually in 2011-13 based on current trends.
Until 1998-99, the State levied vehicle license fees (VLF) in the amount
of 2% of the market value of the motor vehicle in lieu of local property
taxes. The State then allocated 81.25% of these revenues equally
between cities and counties, apportioned based on population. The
State subsequently reduced this rate by 65%, but made up the
difference for several years to local agencies through the State General Func
However, in responding to its budget crisis, the State cutback on this
backfill. As part of a subsequent long-term solution, the State adopted
a complicated swap of the "VLF Backfill," for a comparable increase in
property revenues.
Franchise fees are levied by the City on a variety of utilities at various
rates. The State sets franchise fees for utilities regulated by them (most
notably gas and electricity): 2% of gross revenues. The City sets rates
on a gross receipts basis for the following utilities: water and sewer
(3.5%), solid waste collection (10%); and cable television (5%). These
revenues are projected to increase by approximately 0.8% annually in
2011-13 based on recent trends.
Anyone conducting business in the City is subject to a municipal
business tax. The tax basis and rate are the same for all businesses: $50
per $100,000 of gross receipts (or one-twentieth of one percent). The
tax is not regulatory, and is only imposed for the purpose of raising
general purpose revenues. Based on recent trends, and an enhanced
enforcement effort beginning in 2011-12, this revenue is projected to
increase by 2.5% in 2011-12 and 3% in 2012-13.
H-3
FINANCIAL AND STATISTICAL TABLES
SUMMARY OF KEY REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS
Service Charges
Based on Comprehensive User
Fee Cost Recovery Policy
(See Section B: Policies and Objectives)
0 Development Review Fees
2011-12 revenue $2,244,400
2012-13 revenue $2,035,800
%of total revenue 4%
0 Parks & Recreation Fees
2011-12 revenue $1,511,800
2012-13 revenue $1,532,500
%of total revenue 3%
~ OtherFees
2011-12 revenue $1,858,700
2012-13 revenue $1,880,600
%of total revenue 3%
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
The City sets charges for a broad range of services in accordance
with a comprehensive user fee cost recovery policy as set forth in
Section B (Policies and Objectives) of the Financial Plan. While
no one fee category on its own accounts for more than 1% of total
General Fund revenues, collectively service charges total $5.6
million in 20ll-12, and account for Jl% of General Fund revenues.
Development review fees recover costs for planning, building & safety,
engineering and fire plan check services. Cost recovery for these
services is generally set at 100% of total costs. Based on the current
construction market, underlying permit levels have begun to recover.
Fees are charged for a wide variety of recreation activities including
adult and youth athletics, classes, special events, facility rentals, aquatics,
teen and senior services, and before and after school programs.
Specific cost recovery goals are set for each activity based on a general
policy framework that cost recovery should be relatively high for
adult-oriented programs, and relatively low for youth and senior
programs. Overall, recreation fees recover about 40% of total costs.
Beginning in 2011-12, these fees also include revenues generated at
Laguna Lake Golf Course, which had previously been an enterprise fund.
Fees are also assessed for a wide range of public safety, transportation
and general government services. These are generally projected to grow
about 3% annually.
The City maintains nine special revenue funds: Downtown Business Improvement District Fund, Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fund, Gas Tax Fund, Transportation Development Act (TDA) Fund (to account
for the 2% required allocation of TDA funds for bicycle planning), Law Enforcement Grants Fund, Tourism Business
Improvement District, Public Art Fund, Proposition 42 Fund and Proposition 1 B Fund. The following summarizes
revenue assumptions for the two largest ongoing funds: Gas Tax and CDBG.
• Gasoline Tax Subventions
2011-12 revenue
2012-13 revenue
$1,215,600
$1,233,800
• CDBG
Based on Estimated Allocation
2011-12 revenue*
2012-13 revenue
$1,461,500
$506,600
*Includes carryover grant funding from 2010-11
The State allocates a portion of gas tax revenues to cities under four
distinct funding categories on a population basis totaling about $18.00
per capita. Gas tax revenues are restricted by the State for street
purposes only (see Section B, Policies and Objectives -Revenue
Distribution, for the City's policy regarding the use of gas tax revenues).
In March 2010 the State began swapping Proposition 42 revenues with
allocations from the gas tax.
CDBG funds are allocated by the federal government to eligible local
agencies for housing and community development purposes. Within
general program guidelines to assure that federal program goals are
being met, entitlement cities determine their own projects and priorities.
These revenues have recently been reduced by the Federal Government.
H-4
FINANCIAL AND STATISTICAL TABLES
SUMMARY OF KEY REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
The City maintains four enterprise funds, which account for about 40% of the City's fiscal operations: water, sewer,
parking, transit and golf. Comprehensive rate reviews and revenue requirement projections for the next five years are
presented to the Council annually. The following is a brief overview of enterprise fund revenue issues and the rate
changes for 2011-13.
• Water Fund
2011-12 revenue
2012-13 revenue
• Sewer Fund
2011-12 revenue
2012-13 revenue
•
• Transit Fund
2011-12 revenue*
2012-13 revenue
$14,454,500
$15,491,900
$4,030,500
$7,586,700
Consistent with the multi-year rate setting strategy previously approved
by the Council to improve the City's water distribution and treatment
systems as well as fund participation in the Nacimiento water project,
rate increases were approved of 9% in July 2012.
The Sewer Fund also uses a multi-year rate-setting strategy. In order to
continue supporting an adequate capital improvement plan and meet high
wastewater treatment standards, rate increases were approved of
6% in July 2012.
On April 5, 2011 the Council considered several changes to parking
fees. This included charging for parking on Sunday afternoons as well
as increases in parking meter rates in a core area of the Downtown.
In addition, parking fine and fee modifications are proposed in 2011-13
for commercial loading zone permits, residential parking permits,
overtime and restricted parking fines and cancellation of disabled
parking violations.
Increases in general fares from $1.00 per ride to $1.25 were approved
by the Council in April 2009, with similar increases in bus passes and
special fares, to help fund day-to-day operations as meet State fare box
recovery requirements (20% of operating costs). No additional fare
box rate increases are projected for 2011-13.
*Includes capital project carryover revenues from 2010-11
H-5
FINANCIAL AND STATISTICAL TABLES
REVENUES BY MAJOR CATEGORY AND SOURCE
Tax & Franchise Revenues
Sales & use tax
General
Measure Y
Public safety (Proposition 172)
Property tax
Transient occupancy tax
Utility users tax
Property tax in lieu ofVLF
Franchise fees
Business tax certificates
Real property transfer tax
Total Tax & Franchise Revenues
Fines & Forfeitures
Vehicle code fmes
Other fines & forfeitures
Total Fines & Forfeitures
Investment and Property Revenues
Investment earnings
Rents & concessions
Total Investment & Property
Subventions & Grants
Vehicle license fee (VLF)
Homeowners & other in-lieu taxes
Other in-lieu taxes
SB 90 reimbursements
Police training (POST)
Mutual aid reimbursements
COPS grant AB3229
State Office of Traffic Safety (OTS)
Strategic Growth Council
Zone 9 reimbursements
Other state & federal grants
Total Subventions & Grants
Service Charges
Police Services
Accident reports
Colision investigation
Alarm permits and false alarm fees
DUI cost recovery
Tow release fee
Tobacco permit fees
Administrative citations
Actual
2009-10
10,723,900
5,252,500
257,900
8,579,300
4,496,100
4,862,400
3,565,100
2,396,700
1,830,100
129,000
42,093,000
151,900
49,800
201,700
843,400
61,400
904,800
135,000
75,600
20,500
37,600
639,000
100,000
22,300
100,200
104,800
1,235,000
3,300
13,400
125,100
7,500
22,100
19,600
138,000
H-6
Actual
2010-11
12,098,600
5,616,300
271,300
8,441,100
4,844,200
4,592,300
3,551,100
2,352,100
1,797,800
133,700
43,698,500
125,100
46,300
171,400
414,100
135,800
549,900
205,600
75,400
20,900
20,800
86,800
100,100
79,100
207,300
796,000
2,600
15,900
112,500
29,300
16,500
23,200
257,100
2011-13 Financial Plan
2011-12 2012-13
12,945,500 13,528,000
6,009,400 6,279,800
272,300 284,600
8,370,200 8,370,200
5,134,800 5,395,000
4,898,900 4,938,100
3,551,000 3,551,000
2,503,400 2,523,000
1,849,800 1,923,100
160,000 180,000
45,695,300 46,972,800
125,100 127,600
30,000 35,000
155,100 162,600
300,000 514,700
175,500 180,800
475,500 695,500
22,500
75,000 75,000
21,300 21,500
6,000
35,000 30,000
128,400
100,000 100,000
880,000
85,000 95,000
60,400
1,413,600 321,500
3,000 3,000
12,000 12,000
90,000 90,000
30,000 30,000
14,000 14,000
22,000 20,000
170,000 165,000
FINANCIAL AND STATISTICAL TABLES
REVENUES BY MAJOR CATEGORY AND SOURCE
:GENE:®;:L FUNJ)\\\
Parking citations
Other police services
Total Police Services
Fire Services
Cal Poly fire services
Medical emergency recovery
Fire safetylhaz mat permits
Multi-dwelling unit inspections
CUPA fees
CUPA Fines
Other fire services
Total Fire Services
Development Review
Planning & zoning fees
Construction plan check & inspections
Infrastructure plan check & inspections
Encroachment permits
Fire plan check & inspections
Waterways Management Plan Fees
Total Development Review
Parks & Recreation
Adult athletic fees
Youth athletic fees
Skate Park Fees
Instruction fees
Special event fees
Batting Cages
Rental & use fees
Children services
Teens & seniors
Aquatics
Golf*
Other recreation revenues
Total Parks & Recreation
General Government
Business license
Sales of publications
Other service charges
Total General Government
Total Service Charges
Other Revenues
Insurance refunds
Sale of surplus property
Other revenues
Total Other Revenues
Total General Fund
Actual
2009-10
64,500
36,100
429,600
250,000
158,300
133,400
188,800
66,500
70,000
867,000
429,600
829,000
283,500
130,700
103,700
17,500
1,794,000
136,500
35,600
200
94,900
87,000
179,800
496,400
2,200
235,700
1,268,300
232,400
8,200
92,100
332,700
4,691,600
15,700
123,900
139,600
$49,265,700
H-7
Actual
2010-11
94,200
62,200
613,500
256,100
159,700
141,600
183,000
87,800
63,200
66,300
957,700
500,400
724,800
168,700
142,400
122,900
8,800
1,668,000
124,900
35,800
100
99,700
100,100
177,600
540,800
1,400
225,000
(4,700}
1,300,700
395,400
8,900
42,900
447,200
4,987,100
22,600
12,400
144,300
179,300
$50,382,200
2011-13 Financial Plan
2011-12 2012-13
80,000 80,000
115,500 115,500
536,500 529,500
259,500 265,000
162,500 164,000
140,000 130,000
188,500 188,700
86,000 95,000
41,900 45,000
878,400 887,700
375,000 400,000
860,000 850,000
744,600 500,000
130,000 150,000
126,000 127,000
8,800 8,800
2,244,400 2,035,800
120,000 122,400
33,000 33,700
53,600 83,900
96,300 92,700
182,200 174,500
511,600 511,600
500 500
218,900 217,500
292,700 292,700
3,000 3,000
1,511,800 1,532,500
423,800 443,400
5,000 5,000
15,000 15,000
443,800 463,400
5,614,900 5,448,900
14,200 10,000
65,000 65,000
79,200 75,000
$53,433,600 $53,676,300
FINANCIAL AND STATISTICAL TABLES
REVENUES BY MAJOR CATEGORY AND SOURCE
Downtown Business Improvement District Fund
Investment & Property Revenues
Service Charges
Assessments
Total Downtown Association Fund
Tourism Business Improvement District
Investment and Property Revenues
Service Charges
Assessments
Total Tourism BID Fund
Community Development Block Grant Fund
Subventions & Grants
Gas Tax Fund
Subventions & Grants
Transportation Development Act Fund
Subventions & Grants
Law Enforcement Grant Fund
Investment & Property Revenues
Subventions & Grants
Service Charges
Total Law Enforcement Grant Fund
Public Art Contributions Fund
Investment & Property Revenues
Service Charges
Total Public Art Contributions Fund
Proposition 42 Fund
Investment & Property Revenues
Subventions and Grants
Proposition 42 Fund
Total Special Revenue Funds
Actual
2009-10
208,300
208,300
17,800
902,500
920,300
817,000
762,400
27,800
1,300
3,200
4,500
12,100
20,100
32,200
405,200
405,200
$3,177,700
H-8
Actual
2010-11
198,000
198,000
8,200
967,200
975,400
709,700
1,092,500
27,200
700
2,600
3,300
7,000
85,100
92,100
$3,098,200
2011-13 Financial Plan
2011-12 2012-13
198,100 200,000
198,100 200,000
3,000 3,000
1,025,000 1,055,000
1,028,000 1,058,000
1,461,500 506,600
1,215,600 1,233,800
26,200 26,200
800 900
2,000 2,000
2,800 2,900
6,000 6,000
28,000 20,000
34,000 26,000
$3,966,200 $3,053,500
FINANCIAL AND STATISTICAL TABLES
REVENUES BY MAJOR CATEGORY AND SOURCE
Capital Outlay Fund
Subventions & Grants
State of California
Traffic safety grant
SLTPP/STP grant
STP/SHA-RRTC
Safe routes to school grant
Other state grants
Federal Government
Highway & bridge rehabilitation &
replacement (HBRR)
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
Transportation enhancement (TEA)
Other federal grants
Service Charges
Zone 9 reimbursements
Other Revenues
Contributions
Other Revenue
Total Capital Outlay Fund
Parkland Development Fund
Investment & Property Revenues
Subventions & Grants
Service Charges
Park in-lieu fees
Dwelling unit charge
Other Revenues
Total Parkland Development Fund
Transportation Impact Fee Fund
Investment & Property Revenues
Subventions & Grants
Service Charges
Contributions
Total Transportation Impact Fee Fund
Los Osos Valley Road Sub-Area Fee Fund
Investment & Property Revenues
Service Charges
Total Los Osos Valley Road Sub-Area Fee
Actual
2009-10
324,400
213,600
1,200
44,100
156,600
13,100
100,000
853,000
41,800
35,200
1,200
78,200
107,500
399,900
30,200
87,200
624,800
8,600
11,200
19,800
H-9
Actual
2010-11
189,300
295,400
100
981,700
500
33,600
1,500,600
23,600
25,600
34,900
900
85,000
72,100
647,300
804,600
55,900
1,579,900
18,200
1,796,100
1,814,300
2011-13 Financial Plan
2011-12
210,700
1,511,700
777,800
127,000
485,700
296,400
143,900
565,000
4,118,200
18,000
67,100
3,000
1,200
323,000
412,300
64,000
2,371,700
236,100
7,200
2,679,000
13,000
606,300
619,300
2012-13
40,000
280,000
320,000
18,000
10,000
1,000
29,000
65,500
530,000
595,500
2,000
2,000
FINANCIAL AND STATISTICAL TABLES
REVENUES BY MAJOR CATEGORY AND SOURCE
Fleet Replacement Fund
Investment & Property Revenues
Other Revenues
Sale of surplus property
Total Fleet Replacement Fund
Open Space Protection Fund
Investment & Property Revenues
Subventions & Grants
Other Revenues
Total Open Space Protection Fund
Airport Area Impact Fee Fund
Investment & Property Revenues
Service Charges
Total Airport Area Impact Fee Fund
Affordable Housing Fund
Investment & Property Revenues
Subventions & Grants
Service Charges
Total Affordable Housing Fund
Total Capital Project Funds
TOTAL-GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
Actual
2009-10
59,800
27,500
87,300
12,700
314,800
10,500
338,000
31,500
3,600
35,100
41,600
270,000
(21,300)
290,300
$2,326,500
$54,769,900
H-10
Actual
2010-11
24,700
1,500
26,200
(800)
186,800
200
186,200
19,000
19,000
19,900
30,000
332,800
382,700
$5,593,900
$59,074,300
2011-13 Financial Plan
2011-12 2012-13
22,100 21,800
5,000 10,000
27,100 31,800
2,500 500
563,200
565,700 500
16,000 16,500
16,000 16,500
20,000 20,000
698,900
718,900 20,000
$9,156,500 $1,015,300
$66,556,300 $57,745,100
FINANCIAL AND STATISTICAL TABLES
REVENUES BY MAJOR CATEGORY AND SOURCE
Water Fund
Investment & Property Revenues
Service Charges
Other Revenues
Total Water Fund
Sewer Fund
Investment & Property Revenues
Service Charges
Other Revenues
Total Sewer Fund
Parking Fund
Fines & Forfeitures
Investment & Property Revenues
Service Charges
Other Revenues
Total Parking Fund
Transit Fund
Investment & Property Revenues
Subventions & Grants
Service Charges
Other Revenues
Total Transit Fund
Golf Fund*
Investment & Property Revenues
Service Charges
Other Revenues
Total Golf Fund
Whale Rock Commission
Investment & Property Revenues
Service Charges
Other Revenues
Total Whale Rock Commission Fund
Total Enterprise & Agency Funds
Actual
2009-10
663,500
13,755,800
56,300
14,475,600
411,000
13,228,100
(3,000)
13,636,100
690,500
292,200
2,815,200
(9,600)
3,788,300
5,100
3,302,500
584,900
(33,300)
3,859,200
56,400
333,900
5,000
395,300
31,100
1,033,500
1,400
1,066,000
$37,220,500
Actual
2010-11
342,500
14,256,100
42,000
14,640,600
206,500
13,318,600
1,800
13,526,900
645,500
165,400
2,925,200
(6,000)
3,730,100
10,500
3,462,700
592,000
1,100
4,066,300
57,700
306,700
364,400
22,200
1,006,900
1,600
1,030,700
$37,359,000
2011-13 Financial Plan
2011-12
232,200
15,854,800
37,800
16,124,800
213,000
14,195,800
45,700
14,454,500
700,900
132,000
3,197,600
4,030,500
21,600
4,423,200
638,400
18,100
5,101,300
14,000
914,900
928,900
$40,640,000
2012-13
186,200
16,527,800
38,100
16,752,100
128,600
15,360,200
3,600
15,492,400
694,600
88,900
6,803,200
7,586,700
5,700
2,691,500
637,700
5,000
3,339,900
14,100
884,800
898,900
$44,070,000
* Beginning in 2011-12, golf operations are reflected in the Parks & Recreation activities of the General Fund.
TOTAL-ALL FUNDS $91,990,400 $96,433,300 $1o7,196,3oo $1o1,815,1oo I
H-11
FINANCIAL AND STATISTICAL TABLES
TOTAL EXPENDITURES BY TYPE AND FUNCTION
OPERATING PROGRAM EXPENDITURES
Public Safety
Public Utilities
Transportation
Leisure, Cultural & Social Services
Community Development
General Government
Total Operating Programs
Actual
2009-10
24,203,800
12,378,900
7,069,800
6,785,200
6,690,200
11,517,500
68,645,400
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN EXPENDITURES
Public Safety 4,704,400
Public Utilities
Transportation
Leisure, Cultural & Social Services
Community Development
General Government
Total Capital Improvement Plan
DEBT SERVICE EXPENDITURES
Public Safety
Public Utilities
Transportation
Leisure, Cultural & Social Services
General Government
Total Debt Service
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
Public Safety
Public Utilities
Transportation
Leisure, Cultural & Social Services
Community Development
General Government
Total Expenditures
4,421,500
5,323,900
1,229,400
3,893,700
3,076,800
22,649,700
948,500
5,569,200
1,885,200
962,500
634,500
9,999,900
29,856,700
22,369,600
14,278,900
8,977,100
10,583,900
15,228,800
$101,295,000
H-12
Actual
2010-11
23,506,100
17,040,200
7,079,100
6,785,200
7,053,500
11,178,100
72,642,200
494,100
4,413,800
8,547,900
617,200
884,100
1,731,400
16,688,500
1,065,900
5,685,800
1,826,300
968,800
563,900
10,110,700
25,066,100
27,139,800
17,453,300
8,371,200
7,937,600
13,473,400
$99,441,400
2011-13 Financial Plan
2011-12 2012-13
25,240,700 24,849,000
20,828,300 20,610,400
7,954,500 8,126,700
7,095,000 7,199,200
8,724,200 7,458,900
12,653,200 12,662,200
82,495,900 80,906,400
616,700 465,800
10,912,400 1,170,000
21,754,200 3,253,300
2,348,600 765,800
2,904,900 22,500
864,100 176,500
39,400,900 5,853,900
1,022,500 1,003,100
5,588,800 5,182,600
1,890,300 1,886,500
716,600 674,500
603,600 599,000
9,821,800 9,345,700
26,879,900 26,317,900
37,329,500 26,963,000
31,599,000 13,266,500
10,160,200 8,639,500
11,629,100 7,481,400
14,120,900 13,437,700
$131,718,600 $96,106,000
FINANCIAL AND STATISTICAL TABLES
INTERFUND TRANSACTIONS -REIMBURSEMENT TRANSFERS
Actual Actual 2011-13 Financial Plan
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
General Fund (4,264,000) ( 4,449 ,900) (3,774,900)
Community Development Block Grant Fund 100,500
Enterprise and Agency Funds
Water 1,669,300 1,702,700 1,309,400
Sewer 1,438,400 1,467,200 1,354,300
Parking 538,500 549,300 533,700
Transit 350,200 357,200 476,500
Golf 168,300 171,700
Whale Rock Commission 99,300 101,300 101,000
Total Enterprise and Agency Funds 4,264,000 4,349,400 3,774,900
NET REIMBURSEMENT TRANSFERS $0 $0 $0
Summary of Purpose of 2011-13 Reimbursement Transfers
All of the City's General Government and CIP Project Engineering programs are initially accounted and budgeted
for in the General Fund. However, these support service programs also benefit the City's CDBG, enterprise and
agency fund operations, and accordingly, transfers are made from these funds to reimburse the General Fund for
these services. These transfers are based on a Cost Allocation Plan prepared for this purpose which distributes
these shared costs in a uniform, consistent manner in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
Copies of the most current Cost Allocation Plan are available from the Department of Finance upon request. For
fiscal years 2011-13, the following is a summary of total general government, CIP project engineering and facility
use costs, and the percentage level supported by the General, CDBG, Enterprise and Agency Funds:
2011-12 2012-13
General Government Programs
General Administration
City Administration 684,300 622,900
Public Works Administration 960,200 825,700
Transportation Planning & Engineering 731,000 620,300
Parks & Recreation Administration 797,300 730,800
Legal Services 457,700 442,800
City Clerk Services 169,000 265,700
Organizational Support Services
Finance, Human Resources, Information
Systems, and Geodata Services 3,590,600 4,162,500
Risk Management and Insurance Expenditures 1,999,300 1,724,800
Buildings and Vehicle Maintenance 2,161,700 2,211,600
Total General Government Programs 11,551,100 11,607,100
CIP Project Engineering Program 1,945,300 1,923,700
Facilities and Equipment Use 183,900 186,100
Total Reimbursed Programs 13,680,300 13,716,900
Percent Funded By
General Fund 72% 73%
Enterprise and Agency Funds 28% 27%
Total Reimbursed Programs 100% 100%
H-13
2012-13
(3,732,100)
1,316,700
1,394,100
508,600
416,900
95,800
3,732,100
$0
FINANCIAL AND STATISTICAL TABLES
INTERFUND TRANSACTIONS-OPERATING TRANSFERS
General Fund
Operating Transfers In
Gas Tax Fund
TDAFund
Tourism BID Fund
Capital Outlay Fund
Proposition 42
Total operating transfers in
Operating Transfers Out
Downtown Association Fund
Community Development Block Grant
Capital Outlay Fund
Open Space Protection Fund
Transportation Impact Fee Fund
Fleet Replacement Fund
Debt Service Fund
Golf Fund
Total operating transfers out
Total Operating Transfers
Tourism Business Improvement District Fund
Operating Transfer Out
General Fund
Community Development Block Grant Fund
Operating Transfer In
General Fund
Park Hotel Fund
Total operating transfers
Park Hotel Fund
Operating Transfer Out
CDBGFund
Gas Tax Fund
Operating Transfer Out
General Fund
Transportation Development Act Fund
Operating Transfer Out
General Fund
Proposition 42 Fund
Operating Transfer Out
General Fund
Capital Outlay Fund
Operating Transfer In
General Fund
Actual
2009-10
762,400
27,800
405,200
1,195,400
(21 ,800)
(3,542,500)
(260,400)
(74,000)
(79,100)
(2,908, 700)
(301,500)
(7,188,000)
(5,992,600)
21,800
21,800
(762,400)
(27,800)
(405,200)
3,542,500
H-14
Actual
2010-11
1,092,500
27,200
38,700
500,000
1,658,400
(39,500)
(2,136,900)
(3,023,200)
(333,300)
(5,532,900)
(3,874,500)
(38,700)
39,500
39,500
(1,092,500)
(27,200)
2,136,900
2011-13 Financial Plan
2011-12
1,215,600
26,200
41,000
1,282,800
(77,300)
(3,461,400)
(237,500)
(500,000)
(2,705,200)
(6,981,400)
(5,698,600)
(41,000)
77,300
77,300
(1,215,600)
(26,200)
3,461,400
2012-13
1,233,800
26,200
21,100
1,281,100
(45,000)
(3,250,900)
(22,500)
(700,000)
(2,63 7 ,500)
(6,655,900)
(5,374,800)
(21,100)
45,000
21,200
66,200
(21,200)
(1,233,800)
(26,200)
3,250,900
FINANCIAL AND STATISTICAL TABLES
INTERFUND TRANSACTIONS -OPERATING TRANSFERS
Parking Fund
Operating Transfer Out
General Fund
Total operating transfers
Open Space Protection Fund
Operating Transfers In
General Fund
Fleet Replacement Fund
Operating Transfers In
General Fund
Debt Service Fund
Operating Transfer In
General Fund
Transportation Impact Fee Fund
Operating Transfers In
General Fund
Golf Fund
Operating Transfer In
General Fund
Capital Outlay Fund
Total operating transfers
Parking Fund
Operating Transfers Out
Capital Outlay Fund
NET OPERATING TRANSFERS
Actual
2009-10
3,542,500
260,400
79,100
2,908,700
74,000
301,500
301,500
$0
H-15
Actual
2010-11
106,100
(500,000)
1,743,000
3,023,200
333,300
333,300
(106,100)
$0
2011-13 Financial Plan
2011-12 2012-13
3,461,400 3,250,900
237,500 22,500
500,000 700,000
2,705,200 2,637,500
0 0
$0 $0
FINANCIAL AND STATISTICAL TABLES
AUTHORIZED REGULAR POSITIONS BY DEPARTMENT
City Administration
City Manager
Assistant City Manager
Principal Administrative Analyst
Administration Executive Assistant
Total City Administration
Natural Resources Protection
Natural Resources Manager
City Biologist
Total Natural Resources Protection
Economic Development
Economic Development Manager
Administrative Analyst*
Tourism Manager
Total Economic Development
Community Promotions
Principal Administrative Analyst
Total Community Promotions
City Clerk
City Clerk
Deputy City Clerk
Administrative Assistant
Total City Clerk
Actual
2009-10
1.0
1.0
0.5
1.0
3.5
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
0.3
0.0
1.3
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.0
2.0
3.0
*Position is allocated 30% to Economic Development and 70% to Finanm & Information Technology.
Legal Services
City Attorney 1.0
Assistant City Attorney 1.0
Legal Assistant/Paralegal 1.0
Total Legal Services 3.0
Human Resources Administration
Director of Human Resources 1.0
Human Resources Analyst 1.0
HR Administrative Assistant I* 1.0
Human Resources Specialist 1.0
Total Human Resources Administration 4.0
H-16
Actual
2010-11
1.0
1.0
0.5
1.0
3.5
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
0.3
0.0
1.3
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
4.0
2011-13 Financial Plan
2011-12 2012-13
1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0
3.5 3.5
1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
2.0 2.0
1.0 1.0
0.3 0.3
0.0 1.0
1.3 2.3
0.5 0.5
0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0
0.0 1.0
1.0 0.8
2.0 2.8
1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
3.0 3.0
1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
0.3 0.3
1.0 1.0
3.3 3.3
FINANCIAL AND STATISTICAL TABLES
AUTHORIZED REGULAR POSITIONS BY DEPARTMENT
Risk & Benefits Management
Risk & Benefits Manager
Human Resources Manager
HR Administrative Assistant I
Total Risk & Benefits Management
Actual
2009-10
1.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
Actual
2010-11
1.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
*Position isal/omted 30% to Administration and 7(}'/o to Risk & Benefits Managemrnt tffective July I, 20I I.
2011-13 Financial Plan
2011-12 2012-13
0.0 0.0
1.0 1.0
0.7 0.7
1.7 1.7
lt*i ~£-)!Qtl~:':'~;, Y,~~ £~, .1~161
Finance & Information Technology Administration
Director of Finance & Information Technology 1.0 1.0
Administrative Analyst* 0.7 0.7
Total Finance & Information Technology Administration 1.7 1.7
Accounting
Finance Manager 0.5 0.5
Accounting Supervisor 1.0 1.0
Accounting Assistant 3.0 3.0
Total Accounting 4.5 4.5
Revenue Management
Finance Manager 0.5 0.5
Revenue Supervisor 1.0 1.0
Accounting Assistant 5.0 5.0
Total Revenue Management 6.5 6.5
Network Services
Information Technology Manager*** 1.0 0.5
Network Administrator 4.0 3.0
Network Services Supervisor 0.0 1.0
Database Administrator 0.0 0.0
Information Technology Assistant 0.8 0.8
Total Network Services 5.8 5.3
Geographic Information Services (GIS)**
Information Technology Manager*** 0.0 0.5
GIS Supervisor 1.0 1.0
GIS Specialist 2.0 2.0
Total Geographic Information Services 3.0 3.5
*Position is allocated to 30% to Em nomic Development and 70% to Finance & Information Tedmology.
**Geographic Information Services moved from Public Works to Finance & Information Technology iffective 7 /III 0.
***Position is allocated 50% to Information Technology and 50% to Gmgraphicinformation Services.
H-17
1.0 1.0
0.7 0.7
1.7 1.7
0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0
3.0 3.0
4.5 4.5
0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0
5.0 5.0
6.5 6.5
0.5 0.5
3.0 3.0
1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
6.3 6.3
0.5 0.5
1.0 1.0
1.5 1.5
3.0 3.0
FINANCIAL AND STATISTICAL TABLES
AUTHORIZED REGULAR POSITIONS BY DEPARTMENT
Actual Actual 2011-13 Financial Plan
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
;Hifu\W~~t'·. :,, c,-,~ · · "zl\*3''1 '+{.' i-." ·~
Community Development Administration
Director of Community Development 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Supervising Administrative Assistant 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Administrative Assistant 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Total Community Development Administration 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
Planning Development Review
Deputy Director 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Assistant Planner 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Senior Planner 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Associate Planner 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0
Total Planning Development Review 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0
Long-Range Planning
Deputy Director 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Senior Planner 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Associate Planner 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Housing Programs Manager 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Total Long-Range Planning 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Building & Safety
Chief Building Official 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Assistant Building Official 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Permit Coordinator 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Building Inspector 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Plans Examiner 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Code Enforcement Officer 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Neighborhood Services Specialist 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0
Permit Technician 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
Total Building & Safety 8.8 8.8 10.8 10.8
Parks & Recreation Administration
Parks & Recreation Director 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Recreation Manager 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Administrative Analyst 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Supervising Administrative Assistant 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Administrative Assistant 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Total Parks & Recreation Administration 5.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Aquatics/Sinsheimer Park Special Facilities
Recreation Supervisor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Total Aquatics/Sinsheimer Park Special Facilities 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Youth Services
Recreation Supervisor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Recreation Coordinator 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Total Youth Services 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Facilities
H-18
FINANCIAL AND STATISTICAL TABLES
AUTHORIZED REGULAR POSITIONS BY DEPARTMENT
Recreation Supervisor
Total Facilities
Community Services
Recreation Supervisor
Total Community Services
Recreational Sports
Recreation Supervisor
Total Recreational Sports
Teens, Seniors & Classes**
Recreation Supervisor
Total Teens, Seniors and Classes
Ranger Services
Recreation Supervisor
Total Ranger Services
Golf Course
Golf Course Supervisor
Maintenance Worker
Total Golf Course
**Division was disbanded July 1, 2010 and programs moved to other divisions.
Public Works: Transportation Programs
Transportation Planning & Engineering
Principal Transportation Planner*
Senior Transportation Engineer
Transportation Operations Manager
Engineer
Total Transportation Planning & Engineering
Street & Sidewalk Maintenance
Street Maintenance Supervisor
Street Maintenance Technician
Heavy Equipment Operator
Maintenance Worker
Total Street & Sidewalk Maintenance
Signal & Light Maintenance
Signal & Street Light Technician
Total Signal & Light Maintenance
Creek & Flood Protection
Stormwater Code Enforcement Officer
Heavy Equipment Operator
Maintenance Worker
GIS Specialist
Total Creek & Flood Protection
Parking
Parking Manager
H-19
Actual
2009-10
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
30.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
7.5
10.5
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
3.5
1.0
Actual
2010-11
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
29.2
1.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
5.7
9.7
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
3.5
1.0
2011-13 Financial Plan
2011-12 2012-13
1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
2.0 2.0
3.0 3.0
29.0 29.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
2.5 2.5
1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
2.0 2.0
5.7 5.7
9.7 9.7
2.0 2.0
2.0 2.0
1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
0.3 0.3
3.3 3.3
1.0 1.0
FINANCIAL AND STATISTICAL TABLES
AUTHORIZED REGULAR POSITIONS BY DEPARTMENT
Actual Actual 2011-13 Financial Plan
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
Parking Coordinator 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Principal Transportation Planner* 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5
Parking Enforcement Officer 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Parking Meter Repair Worker 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Supervising Administrative Assistant 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Administrative Assistant 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Total Parking 9.0 9.0 9.5 9.5
*Position is a/located 50% to Transportation Planning &Engineering and 50% to Rzrking if.fective 07/01111.
Transit 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Transit Manager 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Transportation Assistant 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Total Transit
Public Works: Leisure, Cultural & Social Services Programs 17.0 17.0 16.0 16.0
Parks & Landscape Maintenance
Parks Maintenance Supervisor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Parks Maintenance Technician 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Maintenance Worker 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Total Parks & Landscape Maintenance 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Swim Center Maintenance
Building Maintenance Technician 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Total Swim Center Maintenance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Tree Maintenance
PW Maintenance Supervisor 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
Urban Forest Superviosr/City Arborist 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Tree Trimmer 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Total Tree Maintenance 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0
Public Works: Community Development Programs 16.0 16.0 16.8 16.8
Engineering Development Review
Supervising Civil Engineer 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Senior Civil Engineer 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Permit Technician 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8
Total Engineering Development Review 3.0 3.0 2.8 2.8
CIP Project Engineering
Construction Engineering Manager 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Supervising Civil Engineer 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Senior Civil Engineer 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Engineer 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Engineering Technician 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Engineering Inspector 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Administrative Asst I 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
Total CIP Project Engineering 13.0 13.0 14.0 14.0
H-20
FINANCIAL AND STATISTICAL TABLES
AUTHORIZED REGULAR POSITIONS BY DEPARTMENT
Actual Actual
2009-10 2010-11
Public Works: General Government Programs** 15.0 15.0
Public Works Administration
Director ofPublic Works 1.0 1.0
Deputy Director/City Engineer 1.0 1.0
Deputy Director/Public Works 1.0 1.0
Supervising Administrative Assistant 1.0 1.0
Administrative Assistant 1.0 1.0
Administrative Analyst 1.0 1.0
Total Public Works Administration 6.0 6.0
Building Maintenance
Facilities Maintenance Supervisor 1.0 1.0
Building Maintenance Technician 2.0 2.0
Maintenance Worker 2.0 2.0
Total Building Maintenance 5.0 5.0
Fleet Maintenance
Fleet Maintenance Supervisor 1.0 1.0
Fire Vehicle Mechanic*** 0.0 0.0
Heavy Equipment Mechanic 3.0 3.0
Total Fleet Maintenance 4.0 4.0
**Geographic !nfonnation Services moved from Public Works to Finance & Information Technology if.fective 711 II 0.
***Fire Vehicle Mechanic moved from Fire to Public Works for Fiscal Thar 2012-13.
Utilities: Water Service Programs 30.3 29.0
Water Administration & Engineering
Utilities Director 0.5 0.5
Deputy Director/Water 0.9 0.9
Utilities Projects Manager 0.6 0.6
Utilities Business Manager 0.0 0.0
Senior Administrative Analyst 0.5 0.5
Administrative Analyst 0.0 0.0
Supervising Administrative Assistant 0.5 0.5
Administrative Assistant 0.4 0.4
Total Water Administration & Engineering 3.4 3.4
Water Source of Supply
Water Reclamation Facility Supervisor 0.0 0.1
Water Reclamation Facility Operator 0.0 0.5
Maintenance Technician 0.0 0.1
Total Water Source of Supply 0.0 0.7
H-21
2011-13 Financial Plan
2011-12 2012-13
15.0 16.0
1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
6.0 6.0
1.0 1.0
2.0 2.0
2.0 2.0
5.0 5.0
1.0 1.0
0.0 1.0
3.0 3.0
4.0 5.0
29.0 28.9
0.5 0.4
0.9 0.9
0.6 0.4
0.0 0.5
0.5 0.0
0.0 0.4
0.5 0.4
0.4 0.3
3.4 3.3
0.1 0.1
0.5 0.5
0.1 0.1
0.7 0.7
FINANCIAL AND STATISTICAL TABLES
AUTHORIZED REGULAR POSITIONS BY DEPARTMENT
Actual Actual 2011-13 Financial Plan
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
Water Treatment
Treatment Plant Supervisor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Treatment Plant Chief Operator 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Treatment Plant Operator 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Treatment Plant Maintenance Technician 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Laboratory Manager 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Laboratory Analyst 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Total Water Treatment 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1
Water Distribution
Distribution Supervisor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Underground Utility Locator 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Water Distribution System Operator 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Total Water Distribution 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
Water Customer Service
Water Customer Service Personnel 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Total Water Customer Service 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Utilities Conservation
Utilities Conservation Manager 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
Utilities Conservation Technician 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Total Utilities Conservation 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8
Utilities: Wastewater Service Programs 27.0 28.3 28.3 29.4
Wastewater Administration & Engineering
Utilities Director 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5
Deputy Director/Wastewater 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Utilities Business Manager 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
Utilities Engineer 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0
Utilities Projects Manager 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.6
Senior Administrative Analyst 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.0
Administrative Analyst 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
Supervising Administrative Assistant 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5
Administrative Assistant 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4
Total Wastewater Administration & Engineering 2.9 2.9 2.9 4.0
Wastewater Collection
Wastewater Collection Supervisor 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
Water Customer Service Personnel 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Wastewater Collection Operator 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Total Wastewater Collection 6.7 8.7 8.7 8.7
Wastewater Pretreatment
Environmental Programs Manager 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
Environmental Compliance Inspector 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Total Wastewater Pretreatment 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8
H-22
FINANCIAL AND STATISTICAL TABLES
AUTHORJZED REGULAR POSITIONS BY DEPARTMENT
Actual Actual 2011-13 Financial Plan
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
Water Reclamation Facility
Wastewater Reclamation Plant Supervisor 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9
Water Reclamation Chief Operator 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Water Reclamation Operator 7.0 6.5 6.5 6.5
Chief Maintenance Technician 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Maintenance Technician 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.9
Total Water Reclamation Facility 13.0 12.3 12.3 12.3
Water Quality Laboratory
Laboratory Manager 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
Laboratory Analyst 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7
Total Water Quality Laboratory 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6
Utilities: Whale Rock Reservoir 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
Whale Rock Administration & Engineering
Utilities Director 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Deputy Director/Water 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Senior Administrative Analyst 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0
Administrative Analyst 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
Supervising Administrative Assistant 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Administrative Assistant 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Whale Rock Administration & Engineering 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Reservoir Operations
Water Supply Supervisor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Water Supply Operator 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Total Reservoir Operations 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Utilities: Creek & Flood Protection 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Wastewater Collection Supervisor 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Utilities Conservation Manager 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Collection System Operator 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Environmental Programs Manager 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Laboratory Analyst 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Total Creek & Flood Protection 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
H-23
FINANCIAL AND STATISTICAL TABLES
AUTHORIZED REGULAR POSITIONS BY DEPARTMENT
Actual
2010-11
2011-13 Financial Plan
2011-12
',das"a~
Police Administration
Police Chief 1.0 1.0 1.0
Police Captain 1.0 1.0 1.0
Police Sergeant 1.0 1.0 1.0
Senior Administrative Analyst 1.0 1.0 1.0
Administrative Assistant 1.5 1.5 1.5
Total Police Administration 5.5 5.5 5.5
Police Support Services
Communications & Records Manager 1.0 1.0 1.0
Communications Supervisor 2.0 2.0 2.0
Communications Technician 11.0 11.0 10.0
Records Supervisor 1.0 1.0 1.0
Records Clerk 4.0 4.0 4.0
Total Police Support Services 19.0 19.0 18.0
Neighborhood & Crime Prevention Services
Neighborhood Services Manager 1.0 1.0 1.0
Total Neighborhood & Crime Prevention Services 1.0 1.0 1.0
Patrol Services
Captain 1.0 1.0 1.0
Police Lieutenant 2.0 2.0 2.0
Police Sergeant * 5.0 5.0 5.0
Police Officer * 30.0 30.0 30.0
Police Field Service Technician 2.0 2.0 2.0
Total Patrol Services 40.0 40.0 40.0
Traffic Safety
Police Sergeant 1.0 1.0 1.0
Police Officer 4.0 4.0 4.0
Total Traffic Safety 5.0 5.0 5.0
Investigative Services
Police Lieutenant 1.0 1.0 1.0
Police Sergeant * 1.0 1.0 1.0
Police Officer * 11.0 11.0 9.0
Evidence Technician 1.0 1.0 1.0
Field Service Technician 1.0 1.0 1.0
Records Clerk 1.0 1.0 1.0
Total Investigative Services 16.0 16.0 14.0
* Reflects allocation of one Sergeant and three officers in the Situation Oriented Response Team (SORT) from Patrol Services
to Investigative Services, which better reflects their assignments.
Sworn Positions
Non-Sworn Positions
Total Police Positions
H-24
59.0
27.5
86.5
59.0
27.5
86.5
57.0
26.5
83.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
5.5
1.0
2.0
10.0
1.0
4.0
18.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
5.0
30.0
1.0
39.0
1.0
4.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
9.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
14.0
57.0
25.5
82.5
FINANCIAL AND STATISTICAL TABLES
AUTHORIZED REGULAR POSITIONS BY DEPARTMENT
Actual 2011-13 Financial Plan
2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
Fire Administration
Fire Chief 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Deputy Fire Chief* 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0
Administrative Analyst 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Administrative Assistant 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0
Total Fire Administration 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0
Emergency Response
Battalion Chief 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Fire Captain 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Fire Engineer 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0
Firefighter 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Fire Vehicle Mechanic*** 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0
Total Emergency Response 43.0 43.0 43.0 42.0
Hazard Prevention
Fire Marshal 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Hazardous Materials Coordinator 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Fire Inspector 2.8 2.0 1.8 1.8
Administrative Assistant 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Total Hazard Prevention 5.8 5.0 4.8 4.8
Training
Battalion Training Chief** 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
Training Captain*** 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0
Total Training 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0
*Fire Department reorganimtion adds a Deputy Fire Chief for Fiscal Year 2012-13.
**Training Battalion Chit/position will be re-classified to a Training Captain at the md of2011.
***Training Captain position remowd and Fire Vehicle Mechanic moved to Public Works
as part of Fire DqJartment reorganimtion.
Sworn Positions 44.0 44.0 44.0 44.0
Non-Sworn Positions 9.8 9.0 7.8 6.8
Total Fire Positions 53.8 53.0 51.8 50.8
H-25
FINANCIAL AND STATISTICAL TABLES
AUTHORIZED REGULAR POSITIONS BY FUNCTION
Actual Actual 2011-13 Financial Plan
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
PUBLIC SAFETY
Police Protection 86.5 86.5 83.5 82.5
Fire & Environmental Safety 53.8 53.0 51.8 50.8
Total Public Safety 140.3 139.5 135.3 133.3
PUBLIC UTILITIES
Water Service 30.3 29.0 29.0 28.9
Wastewater Service 27.0 28.3 28.3 29.4
Whale Rock Reservoir 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
Total Public Utilities 60.8 60.8 60.8 61.8
TRANSPORTATION
Transportation Planning & Engineering 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5
Street & Sidewalk Maintenance 10.5 9.7 9.7 9.7
Signal & Light Maintenance 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Creek & Flood Protection 6.5 6.5 6.3 6.3
Parking 9.0 9.0 9.5 9.5
Transit 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Total Transportation 33.0 32.2 32.0 32.0
LEISURE, CULTURAL & SOCIAL SERVICES
Recreation Programs 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0
Maintenance Services (Parks, Swim & Trees) 17.0 17.0 16.0 16.0
Golf Course Operations & Maintenance 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Total Leisure, Cultural & Social Services 33.0 33.0 32.0 32.0
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Planning 12.5 12.5 11.5 11.5
Natural Resourcs Management 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Economic Development 1.3 1.3 1.3 2.3
Community Promotions 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Building & Safety 8.8 8.8 10.8 10.8
Engineering Development Review 3.0 3.0 2.8 2.8
CIP Project Engineering 13.0 13.0 14.0 14.0
Total Community Development 41.1 41.1 42.9 43.9
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
City Administration 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
Public Works Administration 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Legal Services 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
City Clerk Services 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.8
Human Resources Programs 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Finance & Information Technology 21.5 21.5 22.0 22.0
Building Maintenance 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle & Equipment Maintenance 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0
Total General Government 51.0 51.0 50.5 52.3
TOTAL REGULAR POSITIONS 359.2 357.6 353.5 355.3
H-26
FINANCIAL AND STATISTICAL TABLES
TEMPORARY FULL-TIME EQUN ALENTS (PTE'S) BY FUNCTION
Actual Budget 2011-13 Financial Plan
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
PUBLIC SAFETY
Police Protection 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2
Fire & Environmental Safety 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
Total Public Safety 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8
PUBLIC UTILITIES
Water Service 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
Total Public Utilities 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
TRANSPORTATION
Transportation Planning & Engineering 2.9 2.9 2.1 2.1
Street & Sidewalk Maintenance 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
Creek & Flood Protection 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3
Parking 10.5 10.5 11.0 11.0
Transit 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32
Total Transportation 14.6 14.6 14.1 14.1
LEISURE, CULTURAL & SOCIAL SERVICES
Recreation Programs 55.2 55.2 53.9 53.9
Maintenance Services (Parks, Swim & Trees) 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2
Golf Course Operations & Maintenance 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3
Total Leisure, Cultural & Social Services 63.7 63.7 62.4 62.4
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Planning 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Engineering Development Review 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6
CIP Project Engineering 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
Total Community Development 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.3
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Public Works Administration 3.0 3.0 2.6 2.6
City Clerk Services 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7
Human Resources Administration 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Risk & Benefits Management 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0
Finance & Information Technology 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5
Geographic Information Services 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0
Vehicle & Equipment Maintenance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total General Government 4.9 4.9 3.8 3.8
TOTAL TEMPORARY FTE'S 91.3 91.3 88.2 88.2
H-27
FINANCIAL AND STATISTICAL TABLES
PENSION OBLIGATION COST TRENDS
OVERVIEW
The following provides information on employer
retirement costs and contributions for the past five
years and budget for 2011-13, along with
background information on the City's retirement
plans.
Background
About Ca/PERS. Along with 2,500 other cities and
local agencies, the City contracts with the California
Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) for
our "defined benefit" retirement plan, which covers
all of our regular employees (except in rare
circumstances, temporary employees are not covered
by the CalPERS plan). We have two plans: one for
sworn safety employees (like police officers and
firefighters) and another for all non-sworn
employees (also called miscellaneous).
CalPERS is a separate and distinct legal entity from
the City, and serves as an independent fiduciary in
managing the City's retirement plan assets.
CALPERS EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS
CalPERS Employer Cost Trends
The following summarizes CalPERS employer costs
since 2002-03:
Employer Retirement Contributions
Fiscal Year Safety Non-Safety Total
2002-03 498,000 264,100 762,100
2003-04 1,660,100 1,397,300 3,057,400
2004-05 2,422,500 1,987,700 4,410,200
2005-06 2,796,100 2,550,200 5,346,300
2006-07 3,159,100 2,747,100 5,906,200
2007-08 3,385,800 3,145,200 6,531,000
2008-09 4,484,500 3,630,900 8,115,400
2009-10 3,993,600 3,514,100 7,507,700
2010-11 3,940,000 3,521,100 7,461,100
2011-12* 5,508,100 4,973,200 10,481,300
2012-13* 5,200,600 4,938,500 10,139,100
*Budget for 2011-12 and 2012-13
2008-09 reflects retroactive costs for binding arbitratiion decision.
H-28
Future Cost Outlook. CalPERS experienced
significant stock market losses in 2008, and these
losses caused employer contribution rates to rise.
Also impacting the rates was the demographic study
conducted by CalPERS in 2010, which concluded
that employees were living longer and retiring
earlier. The result of the study was to increase the
employer rates beginning in 2011-12. In addition, in
March 2012, CalPERS reduced the discount rate to
7.5%, from 7.75% based on changes in economic
assumptions. This change is likely to result in
additional costs of approximately $600,000
annually, beginning in 2013-14.
CalPERS has developed smoothing strategies in
order to prevent large fluctuations in the employer
rates. Smoothing provides for the amortization of
gains and losses over a long period of time (20 to 30
years) which allows for gradual changes in the rates
to make up for these gains and losses. While this
means that the rates will remain relatively stable, it
also means that they are unlikely to go down in the
near future, even if CalPERS experiences higher
than anticipated investment returns.
CalPERS Employer Contribution Rates
These costs are directly affected by required
employer contribution rates as a percent of payroll
for covered employees. (Note: These rates only
apply to "regular" compensation; they do not apply
to overtime or "non-regular" pay.) The following
shows changes in employer contribution rates for
sworn and non-sworn employees since 1992:
CaiPERS Employer Contribution Rates:
1992 to 2012
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10% m
II I 5% I II !!Ill T 0%
1'-
"' ~
~
I lil!Swom •Non-Sworn I
FINANCIAL AND STATISTICAL TABLES
PENSION OBLIGATION COST TRENDS
As reflected in the chart above, while rates are
higher than in the past, the very low rates in the late
1990's and early 2000's were an exception-not the
rule-to employer contribution rates. In addition, no
contributions for non-safety employees were
required for four years (1998-99 through 2001-02);
and no contributions were required for safety
employees for three years (1999-00 through 2001-
02), when these plans were "super funded" and
actuarial assets exceeded actuarial liabilities.
While rates are now stabilized, they have stabilized
at a higher rate, due to the amortization of past
losses. We do not expect rates to decrease anytime
in the near future, based on current retirement
benefits.
Current CalPERS Employer Contribution Rates
For 2012-13, the City's employer contribution rates
are as follows:
Unfunded
Normal Liabili_!y_ Total
Non-Sworn 10.5% 12.6% 23.1%
Sworn 17.2% 22.7% 39.9%
As reflected above, our contnbutwn rate 1s
comprised of two components:
1. The normal rate is what's needed to fund the
benefits earned by active employees during the
current fiscal year.
2. The unfunded liability rate is what's required to
amortize past unfunded liability costs over time.
Employee Contribution Rates
While the method of doing so varies between
employee groups, a PERS member contribution is
also required along with the employer contribution
rates as follows.
Member Contribution Rates
H-29
CALPERS PLAN FUNDING LEVELS
The following shows CalPERS funding levels for
the City's Miscellaneous plan and Safety Pool for
2000 through 2010. This is the most recent actual
information that is available from CalPERS in its
annual valuation report to the City received in
October 2011:
CalPERS Plan Funding Levels: Last Ten Years
Actuarial
Valuation
Date
Ending
June 30
Entry Age
Actuarial Actuarial
Asset Accrued
Value Liability
Safety Employee J>lan
2001 65,800 65,700
2002 60,300 73,400
2003 61,200 80,300
2004 64,997 88,300
2005 69,399 94,527
2006* 6,102,616 7,278,050
2007 6,826,599 7,986,055
2008 7,464,927 8,700,468
2009 8,027,159 9,721,676
2010 8,470,235 10,165,475
l\'on-Safcty Employee Plan
2001 57,800 55,500
2002 53,500 61,700
2003 55,100 71,000
2004 59,400 77,600
2005 64,740 85,207
2006 70,848 92,505
2007 78,069 100,312
2008 85,341 110,763
2009 91,851 130,764
2010 97,282 138,627
In thousands of dollars
Assets
Over
(Under)
Actuarial
Accrued
Liability
100
(13,100)
(19,200)
(23,400)
(25,128)
(1,175,434)
(I, 159,456)
(1,235,541)
(1,694,517)
(I ,695,240)
2,300
(8,200)
(16,000)
(18,200)
(20,467)
(21,657)
(22,243)
(25,422)
(38,913)
(41,345)
Funded
Ratio
100.1%
82.1%
76.2%
73.6%
73.4%
83.9%
85.5%
85.8%
82.6%
83.3%
104.1%
86.8%
77.5%
76.5%
76.0%
76.5%
77.8%
77.0%
70.2%
70.2%
*Beginning with 2006 Safoty Plan is a member of a Ca/PERS safety
pool, and as such, the City will only receive information on the entire
pool, not City specific data.
FINANCIAL AND STATISTICAL TABLES
RETIREE HEALTH CARE OBLIGATIONS
VERY LIMITED COST OBLIGATIONS
Compared with many other cities throughout the
State and the nation, the City has taken a very
conservative approach to providing retiree health
care benefits. In fact, our contribution is the lowest
allowed under our participation in the California
Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS)
health benefit program.
And as discussed below, the City has committed to
fully funding our obligations on an actuarial basis.
DESCRIPTION OF THE CITY'S PROGRAM
I
The City's primary cost obligation for retiree health
benefits is our election to participate in the CalPERS
health benefit program under the "unequal
contribution option."
Background. The City's primary "other post
employment benefits than pensions" (OPEB)
obligation is the minimum contribution that the City
is required to make under its participation in the
CalPERS health care program. When the City
joined the CalPERS plan in 1993, it immediately
experienced an increase in the plan choices available
along with a significant reduction in rates. And due
to CalPERS purchasing power, the City has
continued to experience competitive health care rates
since then.
However, as a condition of joining the CalPERS
health program, the City agreed to contribute a
minimum of $16 per month towards retiree health
care coverage. Under the regulations in place at the
time, this was scheduled to increase by 5% per year.
By 2007, this had risen to only $20 per month.
However, legislation adopted in 2006 (AB 2544)
significantly altered this formula, resulting in
significant increases in the City's required
contribution. While significant, these obligations are
substantially less than in many other cities in
California and the nation.
H-30
ACCOUNTING FOR FUTURE COSTS
Until 2008-09, the City accounted for our limited
retiree health care costs on a pay-as-you-go basis,
which was consistent at the time with generally
accepted accounting principles. However, beginning
in 2008-09, GASB 45 required that these costs be
reported on an actuarial basis. Complying with
GASB 45 required performing an actuarial
evaluation to determine these costs and prepare a
plan for funding them. The results of this actuarial
valuation of our retiree health care plans were
presented to the Council on May 20, 2008.
Based on Council direction, the City began pre-
funding the OPEB obligation via an irrevocable trust
and in May 2009, the Council approved a contract
with CalPERS to provide OPEB trustee services.
The City is required to engage an actuary to
calculate the OPEB obligation every two years. In
meeting this requirement, the City recently received
its OPEB valuation that determines the contribution
required for 2012-13 and 2013-14. The good news
is that the latest valuation indicates that the City's
OPEB trust is 26.6% funded at June 30, 2011 and
the contributions will remain relatively stable in the
future, growing by approximately CPl.
As reflected below, the estimated cost for this
organization-wide in 2012-13 is $558,000. Of this
amount, $441,900 will be incurred in the General
Fund and the balance in other funds, summarized as
follows:
GASB 45 Cost allocation by Fund
General Fund
Community Development Block Grant
Water Fund
Sewer Fund
Parking Fund
Transit Fund
Whale Rock
Total
2011-12 2012-13
427,000
1,500
43,400
30,700
13,500
3,000
5,200
$ 524,300
441,900
1,600
44,900
45,900
15,000
3,200
5,500
$ 558,000
FINANCIAL AND STATISTICAL TABLES
NEW OR INCREASED TAXES AND FEES
The following summarizes the role that new or
increased taxes or fees will play in the 2011-13
Financial Plan, organized into four categories:
1. New or increased taxes
2. New or increased General Fund fees for
operations
3. New or increased fees Enterprise Fund fees for
operations
4. New or increased development impact fees
No New or Increased Rates in 2011-13. Tax and
franchise fee revenues account for about 80% of
total General Fund revenues. There are no new or
increased tax or franchise fee rates in the 20 11-13
Financial Plan.
GENERAL FUND FEES
Fees for a wide range services, including use of City
facilities, recreation programs, public safety services
and development review, account for about 10% of
General Fund revenues.
The 20 11-13 Financial Plan relies upon enhanced
cost recovery from existing fees to generate
revenues that help balance the budget, but does not
implement any new fees. Enhanced business license
and tax enforcement and code enforcement efforts
are expected to generate approximately $124,000 as
detailed on pages H-13 to H-30 of the Financial
Plan.
Modest CPI Adjustments to Existing Fees.
Consistent with the City's adopted cost recovery
policies as set forth in Section B of the Financial
Plan (Policies and Objectives), cost of living
adjustments are scheduled for 2011-13 based on
changes in the U.S. Consumer Price Index, All
Urban Consumers (CPI-U). This will result in
modest increases of about 3% annually in 2011-13
for most of the City's service fees and charges.
H-31
Comprehensive rate reviews and revenue
requirement projections for the next five years will
be presented to the Council on June 12, 2012 for
each of the City's four enterprise funds. The
following is a brief overview of enterprise fund
revenue issues and rate requirements reflected in the
2011-13 Financial Plan:
Water Fund
Consistent with the multi-year rate setting strategy
previously approved by the Council to improve the
City's water distribution and treatment systems as
well as fund participation in the Nacimiento water
project, the Council approved rate increases of 10%
in July 2011 and 9% in July 2012.
Sewer Fund
The Sewer Fund also uses a multi-year rate-setting
strategy. In order to continue supporting an
adequate capital improvement plan and meet high
wastewater treatment standards, the Council
approved rate increases of 7% in July 2011 and 6%
in July 2012.
Parking Fund
On April 5, 20 11 the Council considered several
changes to parking fees. This included charging for
parking on Sunday afternoons, as well as increases
in parking meter rates in a core area of the
Downtown.
In addition, as detailed in the Financial Plan, parking
fine and fee modifications are proposed in 2011-13
for commercial loading zone permits, residential
parking permits, overtime and restricted parking
fines and cancellation of disabled parking violations.
FINANCIAL AND STATISTICAL TABLES
NEW OR INCREASED TAXES AND FEES
Transit Fund
No fare box rate increases are currently projected for
2011-13.
Golf Fund
In accordance with Council direction on April 19,
2011, the operations and costs of the Laguna Lake
Golf Course are no longer represented in an
enterprise fund. Beginning in 2011-12, these
operations have been incorporated into the General
Fund like other recreational activities.
Changes to greens fees will continue to be adopted
by resolution and not automatically updated by CPI,
in order to allow for analysis of the various aspects
of greens fees, including comparison to other local
golf courses.
DEVELOPMENTIMWACTFEES
In accordance with General Plan policies, new
development is responsible for paying for its fair
share of the facilities needed to serve it.
Development impact fees are one of the City's key
tools for implementing this policy.
The City currently has three types of community-
wide impact fees: water, wastewater and
transportation. In addition, the City has adopted
"sub-area" fees in some cases covering specific
water, wastewater, transportation and park needs in
the Airport, Margarita, Orcutt and Los Osos Valley
Road areas.
Like the City's General Fund operating fees, it is the
City's policy to prepare a comprehensive analysis of
each impact fee at least once every five years, with
CPI increases in the interim to keep fees current.
No New Impact Fees in the 2011-13 Budget
There are no new community-wide development
impact fees in the 2011-13 Financial Plan.
However, fee studies are currently in progress that
may result in new or increased fees in selected areas
as follows:
H-32
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Update. We are
in the process of updating water and wastewater
impact fees. Based on preliminary work completed,
there will be moderate fee changes.
Modest CPI Adjustments to Existing Fees
As noted above, it is the City's policy to make cost
of living adjustments annually in development
impact fees to keep them current between
comprehensive updates. Like the City's General
Fund operating fees, this is likely to result in modest
increases of about 3% annually in the City's
development impact fees in 2011-13.
FINANCIAL AND STATISTICAL TABLES
REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE TRENDS -LAST FNE COMPLETED YEARS
2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Includes all governmental fund types ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL
REVENUES
Taxes
Sales and use 15,302,500 19,866,700 18,020,500 16,234,300 17,986,200
Property 8,255,000 8,374,200 8,788,400 8,579,300 8,441,100
Property in lieu ofVLF 3,061,500 3,280,100 3,504,700 3,565,100 3,551,100
Utility users 4,096,100 4,177,700 4,358,500 4,862,400 4,592,300
Transient occupancy 4,786,000 5,054,700 4,679,500 4,496,100 4,844,200
Franchise fees 2,153,700 2,361,700 2,439,400 2,396,700 2,352,100
Business tax certificates 1,706,700 1,866,400 1,878,500 1,830,100 1,797,800
Real property transfer 283,900 213,000 159,100 129,000 133,700
Total Taxes 39,645,400 45,194,500 43,828,600 42,093,000 43,698,500
Fines and Forfeitures 236,500 228,200 261,000 201,700 171,400
Investment and Property Revenues 1,751,400 1,736,600 1,775,300 1,239,500 742,500
Subventions and Grants 4,983,500 4,738,000 8,940,700 4,975,200 4,982,100
Service Charges 8,524,800 8,510,700 6,697,300 5,882,600 9,209,300
Other Revenues 174,700 532,600 1,790,700 377,900 270,500
Total Revenues 55,316,300 60,940,600 63,293,600 54,769,900 59,074,300
EXPENDITURES
Operating Programs
Public Safety 20,659,600 25,055,900 26,002,400 24,203,800 23,506,100
Transportation 2,173,500 2,539,800 3,224,200 3,019,700 2,901,900
Leisure, Cultural & Social Services 5,705,000 6,398,600 6,598,900 6,279,900 6,268,700
Community Development 5,620,100 6,341,600 6,280,800 6,690,200 7,053,500
General Government 6,093,700 6,333,900 6,793,100 7,253,500 6,828,700
Total Operating Programs 40,251,900 46,669,800 48,899,400 47,447,100 46,558,900
Capital Outlay 7,068,000 10,939,300 11,296,400 17,100,600 10,607,300
Debt Service 2,083,500 2,078,000 2,075,800 2,908,700 3,023,200
Total Expenditures 49,403,400 59,687,100 62,271,600 67,456,400 60,189,400
OTHER SOURCES (USES)
Operating Transfers In (Out) (350,900) (462,000) (335,000) (301,500) (227,200)
Proceeds from (uses of) Debt Issuance 8,785,200 1,044,000
Other Sources (Uses) 393,900
Total Other Sources (Uses) (350,900) (462,000) 8,450,200 (301,500) 1,210,700
Excess of Revenues & Sources
Over (Under) Expenditures & Uses 5,562,000 791,500 9,472,200 (12,988,000) 95,600
Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 28,580,200 34,142,200 34,933,700 44,405,900 31,417,900
Fund Balance, End of Year
General Fund 18,830,000 14,829,100 13,991,900 11,114,100 12,907,900
Special Revenue Funds 519,900 585,500 987,900 617,100 604,000
Capital Outlay Funds 13,146,800 17,873,600 27,140,400 17,401,000 15,715,900
Debt Service Fund 1,645,500 1,645,500 2,285,700 2,285,700 2,285,700
Total -All Governmental Funds $34,142,200 $34,933,700 $44,405,900 $31,417,900 $31,513,500
H-33
FINANCIAL AND STATISTICAL TABLES
EXPENDITURES TRENDS BY TYPE: ALL FUNDS COMBINED
OPERATING PROGRAMS
Staffing
Salaries and Wages
Regular Salaries
Temporary Salaries
Overtime
Benefits
Retirement
Group Health & Other Insurance
Retiree Health Care
Medicare
Unemployment Insurance
Total Staffing
Contract Services
Other Operating Costs
Communications & Utilities
Rents & Leases
Insurance
Other Operating Expenditures
Total Other Operating Costs
Minor Capital
TOTAL OPERATING PROGRAM~
Actual
2006-07
$22,637,200
2,634,400
2,673,200
7,425,500
3,048,200
332,600
23,900
38,775,000
11,450,300
2,872,700
182,900
2,653,400
4,148,000
9,857,000
303,800
60,386,100
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 24,177,600
Actual
2007-08
$27,398,100
2,489,000
3,075,200
8,773,200
3,422,400
407,500
50,700
45,616,100
11,348,600
2,940,800
185,400
2,713,800
3,680,000
9,520,000
402,600
66,887,300
20,479,000
Actual
2008-09
$29,098,600
2,535,400
3,191,800
9,337,100
3,933,800
592,900
440,100
29,900
49,159,600
10,783,500
3,259,500
156,000
2,390,300
4,664,800
10,470,600
321,800
70,735,500
28,925,300
Actual
2009-10
$28,915,800
2,287,000
2,552,700
9,341,100
4,017,300
649,100
446,800
106,100
48,315,900
10,500,300
3,042,000
136,600
2,248,900
4,220,800
9,648,300
180,900
68,645,400
22,649,700
Actual
2010-11
$28,831,700
2,226,200
2,341,300
9,349,000
3,789,300
440,700
445,100
43,200
47,466,500
15,676,900
2,986,300
147,400
1,939,500
4,331,000
9,404,200
195,100
72,742,700
16,688,500
2011-13 Financial Plan
2011-12 2012-13
$29,591,900 $30,370,200
2,420,200 2,179,400
2,511,700 2,462,700
10,580,100 10,238,500
4,073,600 4,138,900
524,300 558,000
494,500 501,200
132,300 135,700
50,328,600 50,584,600
20,712,200 18,478,200
3,472,400 3,641,500
157,200 155,900
2,197,400 2,332,900
5,496,900 5,682,900
11,323,900 11,813,200
131,200 30,400
82,495,900 80,906,400
39,400,900 5,853,900
DEBT SERVICE 8,804,700 8,682,500 8,721,100 9,999,900 10,110,700 9,821,800 9,345,700
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 93,368,400 96,048,800 108,381,900 101,295,000 99,541,900 131,718,600 96,106,000
H-34
FINANCIAL AND STATISTICAL TABLES
EXPENDITURES TRENDS BY TYPE: GENERAL FUND
OPERATING PROGRAMS
Staffing
Salaries and Wages
Regular Salaries
Temporary Salaries
Overtime
Benefits
Retirement
Group Health & Other Insurance
Retiree Health Care
Medicare
Unemployment Insurance
Total Staffing
Contract Services
Other Operating Costs
Communications & Utilities
Rents & Leases
Insurance
Other Operating Expenditures
Total Other Operating Costs
Minor Capital
Total Operating Programs
Reimbursed Expenditures
TOTAL OPERATING PROGRAM!
Actual
2006-07
$18,491,700
2,108,000
2,484,600
6,278,300
2,399,900
271,700
19,600
32,053,800
4,300,300
1,489,900
133,400
2,253,900
2,874,900
6,752,100
195,800
43,302,000
(3, 786, 700)
39,515,300
Actual
2007-08
$22,745,800
2,026,800
2,876,000
7,485,200
2,710,000
339,600
42,900
38,226,300
4,546,400
1,539,700
142,100
2,569,300
2,699,900
6,951,000
162,500
49,886,200
(4,075,300)
45,810,900
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 3,457,700 10,797,600
Actual
2008-09
$24,310,100
1,851,700
3,009,200
8,006,100
3,110,800
468,600
363,700
24,100
41,144,300
4,228,700
1,662,000
147,700
2,068,500
3,061,900
6,940,100
90,600
52,403,700
(4,210,800)
48,192,900
4,633,100
Actual
2009-10
$23,861,400
1,911,700
2,397,500
7,915,900
3,191,500
511,600
370,300
87,600
40,247,500
3,812,400
1,538,000
130,500
2,248,900
2,399,300
6,316,700
38,300
50,414,900
(4,264,000)
46,150,900
Actual
2010-11
$23,519,400
1,836,200
2,162,500
7,899,200
3,002,900
346,900
367,100
35,500
39,169,700
3,728,100
1,629,500
141,800
1,939,500
2,544,400
6,255,200
10,800
49,163,800
(4,449,900)
44,713,900
4,279,300 2,509,700
2011-13 Financial Plan
2011-12 2012-13
$24,555,500 $24,916,100
1,945,500 1,793,700
2,304,700 2,260,600
8,944,600 8,565,800
3,254,900 3,299,400
427,000 441,900
410,700 414,200
109,200 111,700
41,952,100 41,803,400
6,084,200 4,690,300
1,914,000 2,021,100
152,200 153,900
2,197,400 2,332,900
3,012,300 2,971,300
7,275,900 7,479,200
28,700 28,700
55,340,900 54,001,600
(3,774,900) (3, 732,100)
51,566,000 50,269,500
4,276,200 4,018,400
DEBTSERVICE* --~2,~0~83~,5~0~0--~2~,0~7~8,~00~0~~2~,0~7~5,~80~0--~2~,9~08~,8~0~0--~3~,0~2~3,~2~00~~2~,7~0~5,~20~0~~2,~63~7~,5~0~0
TOTAL GENERAL FUND
EXPENDITURES 45,056,500 58,686,500 54,901,800 53,339,000 50,246,800 58,547,400 56,925,400
* Based on operating transfers from the General Fund for this purpose.
H-35
FINANCIAL AND STATISTICAL TABLES
APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT HISTORY
The Gann Spending Limit Initiative, a State constitutional
amendment adopted by the voters on June 6, 1979, restricts
appropriations from tax revenues by State and local governments.
Under its provisions, no local agency can appropriate proceeds of
taxes in excess of its "appropriations limit." Excess funds may
be carried over into the next year. However, any excess funds
remaining after the second year must be returned to taxpayers by
reducing tax rates or fees; or a majority of the voters may approve
an override to increase the limit.
The following summarizes changes in the City's appropriations
limit and appropriations subject to the limit since the effective date
of the initiative. While there are exceptions, in general, the City's
appropriations limit increases annually by compound changes in
cost-of-living and population. This summary also reflects changes
made by Proposition 111 (adopted in June 1990) in determining
the appropriations limit as well as the appropriations subject to it.
Appropriations Limit: 1988 to 2011
$52.500.000 ,.---------------,
--Appropriations Limit
g
0
N
Fiscal Year Ending
:=l
0
N
"' "' g g
N N
--Appropriations Subject to Limit
Cost-of-Living Population Appropriations Appropriations
Fiscal Year Limit Base Factor Factor Limit Subject to Limit Variance
Post-Proposition Ill
1987-88 14,836,300 3.47% 2.93% 15,800,900 14,411,700 1,389,200
1988-89 15,800,900 4.66% 4.10% 17,215,200 15,223,500 1,991,700
1989-90 17,215,200 5.19% 3.92% 18,818,600 16,691,800 2,126,800
1990-91 18,818,600 4.21% 4.59% 20,511,000 15,005,400 5,505,600
1991-92 20,511,000 4.14% 3.04% 22,009,500 14,911,100 7,098,400
1992-93 22,009,500 -0.64% 1.00% 22,087,300 18,094,900 3,992,400
1993-94 22,087,300 2.72% 1.86% 23,110,100 15,215,000 7,895,100
1994-95 23,110,100 0.71% 1.40% 23,600,000 16,778,400 6,821,600
1995-96 23,600,000 4.72% 1.60% 25,109,300 15,530,800 9,578,500
1996-97 25,109,300 4.67% 2.31% 26,889,000 16,825,500 10,063,500
1997-98 26,889,000 4.67% 2.06% 28,724,500 17,513,200 11,211,300
1998-99 28,724,500 4.15% 2.70% 29,671,300 17,291,800 12,379,500
1999-00 29,671,300 4.53% 2.28% 31,717,100 18,030,500 13,686,600
2000-01 31,717,100 4.91% 2.46% 34,093,000 18,802,000 15,291,000
2001-02 34,093,000 0.33% 1.80% 34,821,200 23,227,900 11,593,300
2002-03 34,821,200 0.33% 1.80% 35,565,000 23,018,400 12,546,600
2003-04 35,565,000 2.31% 1.32% 36,866,700 23,072,400 13,794,300
2004-05 36,866,700 3.28% 1.15% 38,513,100 27,670,400 10,842,700
2005-06 38,513,100 5.26% 1.19% 41,021,300 32,371,900 8,649,400
2006-07 41,021,300 3.96% 0.73% 42,957,100 30,757,100 12,200,000
2007-08 42,957,100 4.42% 0.96% 45,286,400 36,582,900 8,703,500
2008-09 45,286,400 4.29% 1.12% 47,758,200 36,795,300 10,962,900
2009-10 47,758,200 0.62% 1.01% 48,540,600 27,159,400 21,381,200
2010-11 48,540,600 -2.54% 0.87% 47,296,800 32,058,100 15,238,700
2011-12* 47,296,800 2.51% 0.83% 48,886,400 36,155,500 12,730,900
2012-13* 48,886,400 3.77% 0.47% 50,967,800 40,154,900 10,812,900
*Appropriations subject to limit are estimates for these years.
H-36
FINANCIAL AND STATISTICAL TABLES
DEMOGRAPHIC AND STATISTICAL SUMMARY
LOCATION
Central Coast of California, 235 miles south of San Francisco and 200 miles north ofLos Angeles
INCORPORATED
February 19, 1856
Chartered May 1, 1876
POPULATION (JANUARY 1, 2011)
44,418
FORM OF GOVERNMENT
Council -Mayor -City Manager
PHYSICAL SIZE
11.8 Square Miles
Public Safety 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
Fire
Sworn personnel ..................................................................... .
Number of fire stations .......................................................... ..
Police sworn personnel. ............................................................... .
Public Utilities
Water services
Sources of supply (acre feet)
44
4
59
44
4
57
Whale Rock Reservoir capacity (City share) ...................................................................... ..
Salinas Reservoir capacity ...................................................................................................... .
Groundwater (acre feet by policy) ................................................................................... .
Estimated miles of main line ............................................................................................................... .
Customer accounts .............................................................................................................................. .
Wastewater services
Treatment plant capacity (million gallons per day) ............................................................................ ..
Average daily plant flows (million gallons per day) ...................................................................... ..
Estimated miles of sewer line .......................................................................................................... .
Streets and Flood Protection
Estimated miles of paved streets ............................................................................................................... .
Intersections with traffic signals ............................................................................................................... .
Street lights operated & maintained .......................................................................................................... .
Estimated miles of creek bed maintained .................................................................................................. ..
SERVICES PROVIDED BY OTHER AGENCIES
Public elementary and secondary schools................................. San Luis Coastal Unified School District
Cuesta Community College ........................................................... San Luis Obispo Community College District
Animal regulation .......................................................................... San Luis Obispo County
Property tax collection & administration ...................................... San Luis Obispo County
Solid waste collection and disposal ............................................. Private companies under franchise
H-37
44
4
57
22,380
23,800
500
186
14,777
5.1
4.5
130
130
60
2,270
30
Section I
BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS
BUDGET REFERENCE MATERIALS
OVERVIEW
Complementing the City's Budget and Fiscal
Policies are a number of major policy documents
that also guide the preparation and execution of the
City's Financial Plan. A brief narrative summary for
each of the following documents is provided in
Section I of the 20 11-13 Financial Plan.
Citywide Policy Documents
• City Charter
• Municipal Code
• City Council Policies and Procedures Manual
• City Code of Ethics
• General Plan
• Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center
• Facilities Master Plan: 1988-2010
Utilities
• Urban Water Management Plan
• Wastewater Management Plan
Transportation
• Short-Range Transit Plan
• Access and Parking Management Plan
• Pavement Management Plan
• Bicycle Transportation Plan
Creek & Flood Protection
• Waterway Management Plan
• Storm Sewer Management Plan
Leisure, Cultural & Social Services
• Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Administrative
• Information Technology Strategic Plan
• Property Management Manual
• Public Art Policy
• Fleet Management Program
• Goals and Objectives Reporting System
• Risk Management Manual
I-1
Financial
• General Fund Five Year Fiscal Forecast: 2011-
2016
• Financial Management Manual
• Investment Management Plan
• Revenue Management Manual
• Cost Allocation Plan
• Monthly and Quarterly Financial Reports
• Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
(CAFR)
The following materials are also located in Section I
of the 20 11-13 Financial Plan to facilitate the
reader's understanding of the CIP document and
preparation process:
• Budget Glossary. Defines terms that may be
used in a manner unique to public finance or the
City's budgetary process in order to provide a
common terminology in discussing the City's
financial operations.
• Major Preparation Guidelines and Budget
Calendar. Describes the steps, procedures and
calendar used in developing and documenting
the 2009-11 Financial Plan.
• Budget Resolution. Provides the resolution
adopted by Council approving the 20 11-13
Financial Plan and 2011-12 Budget.
The 2011-13 Financial Plan Supplement includes
the resolution adopted by the Council approving
the Supplement and the 2012-13 Budget.
RESOLUTION NO. 10377 (2012 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING THE
2011-13 FINANCIAL PLAN SUPPLEMENT AND ADOPTING THE 2012-13 BUDGET
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the 2011-13 Financial Plan on June 21, 2011, . .
whi<;h established comprehensive financial and policy guidelines for fiscal years 2011-12 and
2012-13; and
WHEREAS, the 2011-13 Financial Plan included appropriations for fiscal year 2011-12;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed proposed changes to the 2011-13 Financial
Plan to be effective for fiscal year 2012-13 after holding noticed public hearings; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager submitted the 2011-13 Financial Plan Supplement and
Preliminary 2012-13 Budget to the City Council for their review and consideration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo hereby approves the 2011-13 Financial Plan Supplement and adopts the 2012-13 Budget.
Upon motion of Council Member Ashbaugh, seconded by Council Member Carter, and
on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Council Members Ashbaugh, Carter and Smith, Vice Mayor Carpenter
and Mayor Marx
None
None
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 19th day of June 2012 .
. ATTEST:
~-¢2~
Sheryll Schroeder
Interim City Clerk
· ine Dietrick
· 1ty Attorney
R 10377